Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) [MONEY].

Further considered in Committee of the Whole House [Progress 14th April].

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Question again proposed,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session providing, among other things, for the extension of the powers of the London County Council under Sections seventy and seventy-one of the Education Act, 1921, to include a power to provide, furnish, equip, maintain, and carry on the business of an hotel in conjunction with, or as part of, their Westminster Technical Institute situate in Vincent Square, in the city of Westminster, in connection with the supply in such hotel of education in all or any branch of the hotel industry, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as may be necessary to defray the expenses of the Board of Education in respect of such grants as may become payable under the Education Act, 1921, by reason of the extension aforesaid."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Mr. Charles Williams: I objected to this Motion yesterday for the reason that I, and I think many other hon. Members, do not like a Motion being put down authorising the payment of thousands of pounds, and to be told that the expenditure is not expected to exceed such and such a sum—on this occasion £1,800. It is very rare that we have to consider one of these Motions, and I hope that in future a definite sum will be laid down. Might I add that I believe that consent has been given to this matter by the Minister of Education, which confirms it, as far as this House is concerned, and that it has his approval. As I objected yesterday I have taken the trouble to go and see this institution myself. I am absolutely convinced that the training there is of such a character that it will help our boys to get jobs. I thought it was only right that I should bear witness in this House to the very high quality of

the work which is being done there, and to say that I hope that the fact that it has been brought up in this House will encourage the development of the enterprise. I feel sure that the money is being well spent in the best interests of our up-growing generation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL,

"to regulate the expenditure on capital account and lending of Money by the London County Council during the financial period from the first day of April, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-seven, to the thirtieth day of September, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-eight, and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

ASSISTANCE.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Minister of Labour the number of increases and decreases of benefit which have been made in West Lothian under the new Unemployment Assistance Board's Regulations?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): At the latest dates for which figures are available the number of assessments increased above the "standstill" rate was approximately 300, and there was one decrease. These figures relate to the Board's administrative area of Bathgate, which roughly corresponds with West Lothian.

Mr. Mathers: Can the Minister say, from the information available to him now, what the final position is likely to be in respect of increases or decreases?

Mr. Brown: Not at the moment. That is not the question on the Paper. I am asked for the facts at the latest date.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that under the administration of the Unemployment


Assistance Board the weekly benefit to single adult male persons in West Lothian has been reduced to 14s. per week; and whether he will cause this amount to be increased, seeing the county scale is 17s.?

Mr. Brown: I am informed by the Unemployment Assistance Board that the statement in the first part of the question is incorrect. There are in this area single adult males without resources who are receiving allowances of 14s. a week, but they are persons who were previously receiving this amount from the public assistance authorities and have not yet been re-assessed under the Board's Regulations.

Mr. Mathers: Does the Minister wish to indicate that no one in that category has had a—temporary it may be—reduction in benefit?

Mr. Brown: No, Sir. The question put to me was whether benefit has been reduced, and that is not so. Our assessments of that class of young man have not yet taken place. These are questions arising out of the Second Appointed Day. I would point out, as I did in my answer, that there are adult males who are receiving 14s., and that they are the persons with whom we are dealing now.

Mr. Lawson: Is the Minister not aware that the single man would not get 14s.?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member's statement is inaccurate. It is true that in certain areas that would be unusual, but if he took the whole country the hon. Member would find that it was so. There are great variations.

Mr. George Griffiths: Is it not a fact that thousands of single young men are receiving only 10s. under the assessment committee?

Mr. David Grenfell: asked the Minister of Labour the number of unmarried persons without dependants who have exhausted their standard benefits, and who are given nil determination or reduced, allowances by the Unemployment Assistance Board?

Mr. Brown: On 22nd February last, about one-third of the 580,823 applicants for unemployment assistance had no dependants. The allowances at present being paid to such applicants are affected

not only by the regulations but by previous standstill practice, and I regret that information is not available for the purpose of comparing allowances granted to them with unemployment benefit rates.

Mr. Grenfell: Cannot the Minister give an approximate estimate in order that we may know the probable balance available?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member knows that I am always very willing to help him. If he will see me perhaps we can discuss the matter, and he may find out what he wants to know.

Mr. G. Griffiths: How is it that the Minister knows about the rises and not about the falls?

Mr. Brown: We know about both, and we know that there have been many rises and few falls.

Mr. Grenfell: asked the Minister of Labour the amount by which the allowances paid to unemployed persons have been reduced in consequence of the operation of the regulations of 1936; and whether, in view of the increase in the cost of living, it is contemplated that the date for effecting reduction in amounts paid to single men shall be indefinitely deferred?

Mr. Brown: Since the coming into force of the regulations of 1936 there has been an increase in the average weekly payments of assistance to applicants and not a reduction. In November, 1936, the average payment was 23s. 9d., in the week ended 20th March it was 24s. 6d. The latter figure includes cases in which there has been a reduction under the regulations. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 8th April to the hon. Members for Doncaster (Mr. Short) and Greenock (Mr. R. Gibson).

Mr. Grenfell: The figures for 1936 do not give a full view of the picture. May I ask whether it is not a fact that in 1936 there has been a decrease in the amount of unemployment allowances and further increases in the cost of living?

Mr. Brown: I should not say that. I should say that the comparison which I have given is a fair comparison.

MINERS.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: asked the Minister of Labour the total number of unemployed miners registered at the Employment Exchanges in Northumberland in the age groups 55 to 60 and 61 to 65 years?

Mr. E. Brown: I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available.

Mr. Taylor: Is not the Minister aware that when a man reaches 65 he is immediately told that he is not qualified for pension. Is it not within the power of the Minister to get information, or is it being withheld?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member asks not about men applicants of 65, but about miners. If he wants to know about the whole of the unemployed I would refer him to the January issue of the "Gazette" of this year, where there is a most elaborate analysis that we had made in November in regard to categories of work.

Mr. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the applicants are placed in categories of work when they sign on, and that it appears the right hon. Gentleman is deliberately withholding this information?

Mr. Brown: Yes, but it is a difficult thing to analyse all the applicants in terms of age and craft.

Mr. Sexton: asked the Minister of Labour how many limestone quarrymen and lead miners, respectively, are registered as unemployed in South-West Durham?

Mr. Brown: Limestone quarrying and lead mining are not separately distinguished in the statistics of unemployment among insured persons which are compiled in my Department, the former being included in the stone-quarrying and mining classification and the latter in the lead, tin and copper mining classification. The numbers of insured persons, aged 14–64, recorded as unemployed in South-West Durham on 15th March, 1937, were 293 in stone-quarrying and mining, and five in lead, tin and copper mining.

Mr. Sexton: asked the Minister of Labour how many miners in county Durham are registered at the Employment

Exchanges as being unemployed; and how many of such are in the age groups 50 to 54, 55 to 60, and 61 to 65, respectively?

Mr. Brown: At 15th March, 1937, there were 16,863 insured persons, aged 14–64 years, in the coal mining industry classification, recorded as unemployed at Employment Exchanges in the county of Durham. Statistics giving the number of these persons who were aged 50 years or over are not available.

WALES.

Mr. Grenfell: asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons receiving standard benefit and Unemployment Assistance Board allowances, with the aggregate amounts, respectively, in the Wales division; and whether he will consider the possibility of increasing the amounts paid in order to compensate for the increasing cost of the necessities of life?

Mr. Brown: As the reply to the first part of the question includes a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. In reply to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply to the hon. Members for Doncaster (Mr. Short) and Greenock (Mr. R. Gibson) on 8th April, of which I am sending him a copy.

Following is the reply:

Table showing the numbers of payments of unemployment benefit and un- employment allowances made direct through Employment Exchanges in the Wales Division during the week ended 20th March, 1937, and the approximate amounts paid.

Number of payments.
Approximate amount paid.


*Unemployment Benefit:

£


General Scheme
51,982
50,855


Agricultural Scheme
747
585


Unemployment Allowances.
89,363
117,097


* Exclusive of payments made through associations, for which a geographical analysis is not available.

WEST HAM.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons registered


at the West Ham Employment Exchanges at the last convenient date, showing the figures, separately, of men, women, boys and girls; and the number of persons who have found employment for one month or more through these Employment Exchanges during the 12 months ended to the last convenient date?

Mr. E. Brown: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The Table below shows the numbers of unemployed persons on the registers of the Employment Exchanges in West Ham* at 15th March, 1937, and the numbers of vacancies filled by those Exchanges during the period 24th March, 1936, to 15th March, 1937. Statistics showing the numbers of persons placed in employment lasting one month or more are not compiled.

—
Number of unemployed persons on the registers at 15th March, 1937.
Number of vacancies filled during the period 24th March, 1936–15th March, 1937.


Men aged 18 years and over.
9,328
5,765


Boys under 18 years of age.
164
1,559


Women aged 18 years and over.
1,468
2,150


Girls under 18 years of age.
137
1,812


Total
11,097
11,286


* These Exchanges are the Canning Town and Stratford Employment Exchanges and Juvenile Employment Bureaux.

SEASONAL WORK (WOMEN).

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Labour what steps Employment Exchanges take to inquire into the domestic circumstances of women to whom they offer seasonal employment at the seaside; and whether any special consideration is taken of cases of single women who have a mother entirely dependent upon them for household duties?

Mr. E. Brown: Circumstances of this kind are stated by the applicants themselves, without the necessity for special inquiry by the exchange. They are sympathetically considered, and, if a

question of disallowance of benefit arises, the applicant, as the hon. Member knows, has the right of appeal to a court of referees.

Mr. Day: Have these circumstances been taken into consideration with a view to comparing the position of these applicants with that of married women with dependants?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman will understand that we cannot draw any general line here. Each case, of course, has its own merits or demerits.

JUNIOR INSTRUCTION CENTRES (MEALS).

Mr. George Hall: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has now considered the report from the National Advisory Council for Juvenile Employment for England and Wales on the provision of meals for juveniles in attendance at junior instruction centres; and what steps he proposes to take to give effect to the recommendations of the committee?

Mr. E. Brown: The report referred to by the hon. Member is receiving immediate attention, and a decision will be announced as soon as possible.

Mr. Hall: Is it not the case that this matter has been before the Minister for the last five weeks, that prior to that it was considered by a committee 12 months ago, and that it was brought to the notice of the Minister as far back as two years ago, but nothing has been done? May I express the hope that the Minister will now give it his immediate attention?

Mr. Brown: I have already informed the hon. Gentleman that I am doing that, but there is quite a number of other things to which I have to have regard.

Mr. Hall: When will the right hon. Gentleman announce the decision at which he and the Government have arrived?

Mr. Brown: As soon as it is reached.

Mr. Hall: When will that be?

Mr. Brown: I cannot say.

Mr. Leonard: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has yet received the reports from the National Advisory Council for Scotland on juvenile instruction centres; what recommendations those reports make with regard to the provision of milk and meals for juveniles in attend-


ance at these centres; and what steps he proposes to take to give effect to the recommendations?

Mr. Brown: I have recently received an interim report from the National Advisory Council for Juvenile Employment (Scotland) on the provision of meals in junior instruction centres. I expect to have the final report of the council shortly. The two reports will be published as soon as possible after the final report is received. The recommendations of the interim report are receiving immediate attention, and a decision will be announced as soon as possible.

Mr. Leonard: Is it not desirable that there should be some finality in regard to this matter?

Mr. Brown: I would not like to be drawn into a debate as to what finality means.

NEW EXCHANGE, MANCHESTER.

Mr. Fleming: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the objection submitted to him against his proposal to erect an Employment Exchange adjoining the central branch of the Manchester Royal Infirmary; and whether he still intends to proceed with the said building?

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can now inform the House of the result of his attention to the position that will be created by the erection of the central Employment Exchange in Manchester?

Mr. Benn: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has reached any decision concerning the erection of an Employment Exchange adjoining the central branch of the Manchester Royal Infirmary; and whether he has observed the very general objection in Manchester to this proposal?

Mr. Emery: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the building of the new Employment Exchange in Manchester adjacent to the central branch of the Manchester Royal Infirmary will cause the closing down of the branch for in-patients; whether he will outline the special reasons for the selection of such a site; and whether, if it is decided to proceed with the scheme, some reasonable part of the cost incurred

by the infirmary authorities for removal or alteration of the branch will be paid to them?

Mr. E. Brown: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given to the hon. Members for the Exchange Division of Manchester (Mr. Eckersley) and for Eccles (Mr. Cary) on this subject on 8th March. I am now in consultation with the First Commissioner of Works regarding certain proposals recently made to me informally on behalf of the board of the Manchester Royal Infirmary, but, until our inquiries are completed, I am unable to make any statement.

Mr. Fleming: Has the Minister considered the serious objection of the medical profession in Manchester on the ground that this proposed building will very gravely obstruct the work that is being carried on in the central branch of the Royal Infirmary?

Mr. Brown: I am aware, not only of that objection, but of some others which have been put to me. I am also aware that for 15 years past the great social service of the Employment Exchange in Manchester has been carried on in a building that is utterly unsuitable and not fair to the staff concerned.

Mr. Benn: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any advice as to the public opinion in Manchester with regard to this matter? If not, will he be good enough to do so?

Mr. Brown: I am well aware of the opinion in Manchester. At the request of the representative of the Infirmary, I saw him privately, and it is for that reason that I am now doing my best to carry out the promise I made to him that I would get consideration for this matter.

Mr. Benn: That is not quite what I asked. I asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had been in consultation with representative public opinion in Manchester on the matter, and, if not, whether he would be so good as to get into consultation?

Mr. Brown: Some time ago I saw a very important body on this matter, and heard all the arguments over again.

Mr. E. Smith: Would the right hon. Gentleman also consider the alternative


of taking into consultation the Office of Works with a view to taking over the site of the Infirmary and suitably compensating the Manchester Royal Infirmary?

Mr. Brown: I prefer to make no statement about that at the moment.

Mr. Emery: Can the Minister say whether, if it is possible to proceed with the scheme, some reasonable proportion of the additional cost incurred by the hospital authorities in removing the branch will be repaid to them?

Mr. Brown: I do not think I can be expected to answer a hypothetical question of that kind.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been directed to the report prepared by the medical board of the Manchester Royal Infirmary with reference to the proposed erection of the central Employment Exchange; and what action does he propose to take?

The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): I have received representations from the hospital on this proposal, but I have no powers in the matter, which is one for my right hon. Friends the Minister of Labour and the First Commissioner of Works.

Mr. Smith: In view of the fact that the Royal Infirmary is a voluntary hospital, will the right hon. Gentleman accept his share of responsibility and cooperate with the Minister of Labour and the First Commissioner of Works with a view of bringing about a satisfactory solution of this question?

Sir K. Wood: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has already answered that question.

Mr. Fleming: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether on receipt of this medical report he made any inquiries in Manchester to see if any medical man agreed with the action of the Minister of Labour?

Sir K. Wood: As a matter of fact, when I was in Manchester recently I saw the site, and the officials.

Mr. Fleming: That is no reply to my question.

GIRL TEXTILE WORKERS, SOWERBY BRIDGE.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether he is aware that young girls who have been sent to work at textile mills in Sowerby Bridge have been sent to lodge at homes which were wholly unsuitable, where the food was coarse and inadequate; and will he insist that supervisers exercise greater care when selecting accommodation for young women;
(2) how many girls have been recruited through Employment Exchanges to work at Lees Mill, Sowerby Bridge, during this year; whether he is aware that this is a non-union mill; and, if so, does he approve of his officials acting as recruiting agents for non-trade union employers who pay less than the recognised rates of wages?

Mr. E. Brown: I am obliged to the hon. Member for a communication which I have just received. I am having inquiries made, and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Mr. Williams: While the right hon. Gentleman is making inquiries, will he insist that the supervisors exercise infinitely more care than they appear to have done in the case referred to?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member cannot expect me to accept such a generalisation. The work is very difficult and, on the whole, amazingly well done.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOLIDAYS WITH PAY.

Mr. Lyons: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can now give the date of the first sitting of the committee established to consider the matter of annual paid holidays?

Mr. Rowson: asked the Minister of Labour whether the committee of inquiry into the question of holidays with pay has commenced sitting; and what bodies and persons will be asked to submit evidence thereon?

Mr. E. Brown: The Holidays With Pay Committee held its first sitting on 12th April. I understand that certain preliminary evidence will be taken first from the Ministry of Labour, on 27th April, and that thereafter the committee has decided to take evidence initially from the major industrial and commercial


organisations interested; but all bodies and persons interested are being invited to submit evidence.

Mr. Lyons: Has my right hon. Friend considered inviting to the committee, at an early stage in its proceedings, representatives of all those industrial firms who have for so long carried on this practice, se that their experience may be considered by the committee?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member will understand that this matter has passed out of my administration and that it is in the hands of the committee. I have no doubt that members of the committee, which consists of four representatives of the Federation and four of the Trades Union Congress, will know who can give evidence and who may be invited.

Mr. Lyons: When the Minister's representatives go before the committee in a week's time, would he consider suggesting to the committee that the industrial organisations I have indicated will be in a position to give important evidence?

Mr. Brown: That is not our function. Our function is to give as much assistance as we can in regard to matters as they are.

Mr. Lyons: asked the Minister of Labour the latest estimate of the number of employed persons receiving annual holiday with pay in all sections, including Departments of State; and the percentage this represents of the whole volume of such employment?

Mr. Brown: It is estimated that the number of workpeople covered by collective agreements between organisations of employers and workpeople providing for annual holidays with pay, including those covering the employés in Government industrial establishments, is between 1½ and 1¾ million. It is known, however, that in addition large numbers of salaried persons, shop assistants, workers on "standing" wages and wage-earners employed by some individual firms who are not parties to collective agreements, receive holidays with pay, but the total number of such employés is not known. My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that I have recently appointed a committee whose terms of reference include the investigation of the extent to which holidays with pay are now given.

Mr. Lyons: Is it not the fact that, in no case where this system of paid holidays has been adopted, has any other system ever been reverted to?

Mr. Brown: I am not aware that anyone who has adopted it has gone back on it.

Mr. Thorne: Is it not the case that all Members of Parliament are paid for their holidays?

Oral Answers to Questions — COLLIERY WASTE HEAPS.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has been approached by local authorities for assistance to reclaim land in the vicinity of collieries where such land has become derelict, either through lying under water or by waste heaps; and what is the position?

Mr. E. Brown: I have for some time been in communication with the county borough of Wigan in regard to a question of this kind, and I have recently received a further letter on this and other matters affecting the situation in Wigan which I am now considering.

Mr. Tinker: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what is the position with regard to this matter, and what grants can be made?

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member will put that question down, I will give him all the information I can.

Oral Answers to Questions — CLYDE SHIPBUILDING DISPUTE.

Mr. Leonard: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has made any overtures towards the settlement of the strike of apprentices in the Clyde area through an approach to the district committee of the Engineering and Shipbuilding Trades Federation or the federated employers; and what response, if any, he has received from these organisations?

Mr. Neil Maclean: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the employers in the shipbuilding and engineering trades have again refused to negotiate with representatives of the Confederation of Trade Unions on the questions involved in the strike of 12,000 apprentices in the Clyde area; and whether he can make any statement regarding what action his officers are taking to avert the stoppage of work which is likely to take place on Friday, 16th April?

Mr. Buchanan: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that at present a dispute is taking place in which 12,000 apprentices in the Clyde shipbuilding and engineering works are involved; that the employers have refused to negotiate with the proper trade union officials; and whether his Department have, in view of the serious nature of the dispute which might involve large numbers of other workers, taken any steps to bring the parties together?

Mr. E. Brown: The information at my disposal, as a result of the discussions which have taken place indicates that the Clyde District Committee of the Confederation of Engineering and Shipbuilding Trades, has taken action without the authority of the National Executive. Further, that when the stoppage of work occurred, an application had already been made by the National Executive of the confederation and the other trade unions concerned for a meeting with the Engineering Employers' Federation on the subject of the position of the unions with regard to the wages and conditions of apprentices and boys. It is clear that the continuance or extension of the stoppage of work can only cause further delay in the discussion and settlement of the matters in dispute. While I am ready to give all possible assistance in securing the proper discussion of questions arising between employers and work-people, I am sure that hon. Members will recognise that unofficial stoppages of work are incompatible with the operation of constitutional procedure, and that it is my duty in the interests of workpeople generally to stand by such procedure.

Mr. Leonard: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that more than 12,000 young persons employed in the shipyards around the Glasgow district have for a number of years been refused any recognition by the employers, either through trade unions or through any other medium?

Mr. Brown: It was because of the recognition of the gravity of that fact that I instructed the Industrial Relations Officer of the Ministry of Labour to address a communication, and it was as a result of that that the facts I have mentioned in my answer emerged.

Mr. Maclean: Is it not the case that the employers definitely refuse to meet any representative of any union on behalf

of these apprentices, and are insisting upon the apprentices seeing them themselves individually; and that, consequently, the statements appearing in the answer supplied to the Minister of Labour are definitely incorrect?

Mr. Brown: No, Sir; the answer is quite correct. It is clear that when the stoppage of work occurred an application had been made by the National—not the Glasgow—Executive of the Confederation and the other trade unions concerned for a meeting of the Engineering Employers' Federation on the subject of the position of the unions with regard to the wages and conditions of apprentices and boys That is the major factor which emerged through the intervention of the officer of my Department.

Mr. Maclean: If that had been the case, the employers would not have been holding out in their objection to meeting the representatives of a trade union, but would have put that forward as an alternative suggestion.

Mr. Brown: I cannot accept that statement. I prefer to leave on record the statement I have made.

Mr. Buchanan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the employers, in reply to his own mediation, issued a statement that they do not intend to negotiate with the union nationally or locally? In view of the fact that the dispute is likely to extend considerably, will his Department take any steps to bring the two parties together?

Mr. Brown: I can add nothing to what I have said.

Oral Answers to Questions — TEXTILE CONFERENCE (40-HOUR WEEK).

Mr. Silverman: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will instruct His Majesty's representative at the Textile Conference to co-operate actively in the efforts now being made to establish on an international basis a 40-hour working week?

Mr. E. Brown: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne) on 12th April, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. Silverman: Is the Government representative, in the absence of such


instructions, in fact co-operating with all those, including the Japanese representatives, who are working against the establishment of a 40-hour week?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member misconceives the purpose of these deliberations. This is a conference called as the result of discussions at Geneva last year, not for the purpose he suggests, but for setting out the facts.

Mr. Silverman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at that conference, on the invitation of His Majesty's Government representative himself, there was initiated a discussion on this matter and that His Majesty's Government representative ranged himself on the side of those who did all they could to impede the reaching of an international agreement on the matter?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member is mistaken. This was not an attempt to originate a national agreement at all. If such an agreement were arrived at, it would be arrived at in Geneva in the ordinary way. This is an extraordinary conference, held largely as the result of representations made by the Government, for the purpose of setting out all the facts.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTTISH BANKERS ASSOCIATION.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the communication addressed to him by the Scottish Bankers Association complaining of intimidation in the Union Bank and North Bank; and whether he is prepared to appoint a committee of inquiry to investigate and, if possible, remove the grievances complained of and secure the proper recognition of the staff association?

Mr. E. Brown: I have received a telegram from the general secretary of the Scottish Bankers Association making certain allegations, but I have not such information as would justify me in taking action at this juncture.

Mr. Mathers: On the information in his possession, will the right hon. Gentleman at least indicate that he deprecates any such action being taken by the employers, and will he also give an indication that it would be in accordance with his desire that this union should be recognised?

Mr. Brown: I cannot do that on the information that I have received.

Mr. Mathers: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the charges of veiled intimidation are to the effect that members of this union are being asked whether in certain circumstances they would or would not go on strike, and that the employers have gone the length of withholding or indicating the withholding of regular increases in salary?

Oral Answers to Questions — CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY).

Mr. Muff: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is in a position to furnish the names of the committee to inquire into the administration of corporal punishment for juvenile delinquents?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Simon): As stated in reply to the hon. Member on 18th March, full consideration of the appropriate personnel is necessary before the composition of this committee can be announced. A number of names are under consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make any further statement. I may add that the terms of reference of the committee will not be confined to juvenile delinquents, but the scope of the committee's inquiry will cover also the question of corporal punishment imposed on adults, whether by sentence of the criminal courts or by the prison authorities as part of the system of prison discipline.

Mr. Muff: When could I put a question down again?

Sir J. Simon: Perhaps I might communicate with the hon. Member.

Viscountess Astor: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that there is a woman on the committee?

Sir J. Simon: I anticipated that that question would be put. The words chosen were that "full consideration" would be given "of the appropriate personnel."

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Will the right hon. Gentleman be careful to select Members who have had practical experience of corporal punishment and its beneficial effects?

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman appoint someone who has not had the benefit of corporal punishment?

Oral Answers to Questions — INFANTICIDE.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Home Secretary whether he has been in consultation, or will consult, with the Lord Chancellor on the subject of the ambiguity of the law relating to infanticide; and whether he proposes to introduce legislation for the purpose of modifying the law in this class of case?

Sir J. Simon: I presume that the hon. Member has in mind the question of amending the Infanticide Act, 1922, so as to define the expression "newly born." I have been in consultation with the Lord Chancellor on this subject. An examination of the problem shows that there would be a number of difficulties in amending the existing Act, and I am not in a position to promise any legislation on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — STAG HUNTING.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of numerous cases of cruelty to stags, he will introduce legislation to put an end to the hunting of these animals?

Sir J. Simon: I cannot add to the answer which I gave the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Watkins) on 18th February.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to a recent case in which after being hunted for eight miles, a stag endeavoured to escape by taking to a river where it was shot at twice by a shot gun, struggled on for half an-hour and was fired at three times from a sporting rifle, and finally dragged ashore by farm labourers and despatched with a knife—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is giving information.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that work on air-raid precautions is being held up because local authorities are refusing to incur the necessary expenditure until the Government have made public its decision as to how the costs of this work are to be met; whether he is now in a position to make a statement; and,

if not, when he anticipates an announcement will be made?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to a number of questions on this subject last Thursday, to which I am unable at present to add anything.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if a decision is delayed much longer it will be impossible for local authorities to take effective action?

Oral Answers to Questions — DISCHARGED PRISONERS (AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT).

Colonel Ropner: asked the Home Secretary whether any provision is made whereby persons discharged from His Majesty's prisons or reformatory institutions are encouraged to take up agricultural employment?

Sir J. Simon: Of the approved schools for older boys 19 have farms attached and agriculture is one of the main subjects in which vocational training is given. Of the boys who have left such schools in the last three years over 500 have taken up land work. In prisons the opportunities for agricultural training are more restricted, but at the Borstal institutions training in farm work is given to a number of the inmates, and endeavours are made to find for them on discharge work for which they have been trained.

Mr. T. Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that prisoners who have been for any length of time on prison diet would soon get used to lower diet on the countryside?

Oral Answers to Questions — LIQUOR TRAFFIC (STATE MANAGEMENT).

Brigadier-General Spears: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the hours worked by barmaids and barmen employed in public houses under the Carlisle State Management Scheme are 63¾ hours per week with one Sunday in every three off duty, when the hours worked are 56½; and how these hours compare with the hours worked by barmaids and barmen employed in public houses under private enterprise?

Sir J. Simon: I understand that the hours worked by barmen and barmaids employed by the Carlisle State Management Scheme are substantially as stated by my hon. and gallant Friend. The conditions of service are agreed with the National Union of General and Municipal Workers, and I have no reason to think that they compare unfavourably with those obtaining under private enterprise.

Brigadier-General Spears: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it right that employés of the State should work a week of 60 hours?

Mr. Mathers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these employés are well organised, and that the trade union with which they are connected is desirous of seeing their wages and conditions extended throughout the trade, including £3 7s. 6d. a week for barmen and holidays with pay?

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT (UNREGULATED OCCUPATIONS).

Mr. Paling: asked the Home Secretary whether the Government have considered the report of the Departmental Committee on the hours of employment of young persons in certain unregulated occuptions; and what steps they propose to take?

Sir J. Simon: Yes, Sir. I have been giving careful consideration to this important report, and I am hopeful that it will be possible to deal in the Factories Bill with the hours of the young persons employed in connection with factories, docks and warehouses whose inclusion in the new factory code is recommended by the Committee. As regards the other classes of young persons in whose case the Committee suggested an extension of the Shops Act, 1934, it would be necessary to introduce separate legislation which could not be undertaken during the present Session.

Mr. Paling: Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to endeavour to deal with this matter in view of the appalling conditions that exist in these unregulated occupations?

Sir J. Simon: I think the hon. Member will feel it is well that we should take advantage of the Factories Bill, if we can, to introduce a new Clause which

will deal with what is a very important part of the subject.

Viscountess Astor: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it was a definite pledge of the Government to bring in a Bill to deal with children in unregulated occupations?

Sir J. Simon: I think the Noble Lady will see that we are doing rather better than our pledge, because we are taking advantage of legislation which has been introduced in order to deal with the subject.

Viscountess Astor: There is no legislation to deal with children in unregulated trades.

Sir J. Simon: Perhaps the Noble Lady did not note the first part of my original answer:
I have been giving careful consideration to this important report, and I am hopeful that it will be possible to deal in the Factories Bill with the hours of young persons employed in connection with factories, docks, and warehouses whose inclusion in the new factory code is recommended by the committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTOR VEHICLES (EXAMINATION).

Mr. Benjamin Smith: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the circumstances leading to the death of a four-year-old boy, who was knocked down and killed by a lorry owned by the Silkburn Coal Company, in York Road, Leeds, on 4th December last; whether he is aware that the Leeds stipendiary magistrate, Mr. Horace Marshall, described it as the worst and most callous case he had ever had; and whether, in the light of the disclosures made as to the condition of the lorry and the attitude of the company when defects were reported, criminal proceedings are contemplated?

Sir J. Simon: I would refer to the reply given on behalf of the Minister of Transport to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Leeds (Sir J. Birchall) on 25th February last. I understand that proceedings were taken against the company in question and that fines amounting to £60 were imposed.

Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the magistrate in imposing a fine said that having regard


to the notice published by the firm debarring employés from reporting defective vehicles criminal proceedings could be taken? Will he reconsider the question of criminal proceedings against the firm, and not against the driver, for sending out wilfully lorries in an inefficient condition?

Sir J. Simon: My information may not be complete, but it is to the effect that proceedings were taken against the company.

Mr. Smith: Proceedings were taken under the Road Traffic Act, but here is a case where the coroner himself said that he thought it was a case of manslaughter and that criminal proceedings could be taken. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the compensation paid for the loss of the child by the firm only paid the funeral expenses?

Sir J. Simon: I have no information about the case beyond what I have given, but if the hon. Member will supply me with further information I will look into it.

Mr. Pritt: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it is true that the firm put up a notice of that kind, and whether he will get the Law Officers of the Crown to consider whether they cannot be prosecuted for conspiracy to defeat the law?

Sir J. Simon: I shall get, I hope, the best legal advice.

ROAD ACCIDENTS.

Mr. Day: asked the Home Secretary the figures of the fatal and non-fatal road accidents which have occurred in the Metropolitan police area for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; and the number which occurred during the corresponding calendar period prior to the abolition of the speed limit?

Sir J. Simon: As the answer is in tabular form, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Day: Is it a fact that the figures show that the accidents were very much less than before the speed limit was imposed?

Sir J. Simon: Perhaps the hon. Member had better look at the figures.

Lieut.-Colonel Moore: Will the right hon. Gentleman separate those accidents caused by Rolls Royce cars?

Following are the figures:


Accidents resulting in
Number of accidents in the 12 months ended 31st December.




1934.
1936.


Death
…
1,413
1,038


Personal injury
…
52,184
50,186


Total accidents
…
53,397
51,224

OXFORD PRISON (PROCEDURE).

Mr. Montague: asked the Home Secretary whether any change of procedure has been adopted at Oxford prison in booking or checking out and in red-band prisoners since September, 1933; if so, what are the alterations?

Sir J. Simon: Yes, Sir. As stated in reply to a question on 8th April, 1936, it was arranged that as an additional precaution separate records should be kept of the movements of "red-band" men into and out of the Hall.

PRISON OFFICERS' REPRESENTATION BOARD.

Mr. Montague: asked the Home Secretary whether all Civil Service Staff Associations, in common with the Prison Officers' Representative Board, are dealt with by his department under the provisions of the Industrial Courts Act, 1919, and the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act, 1927; and will he consult the Law Officers of the Crown on the position of the Prison Officers' Representative Board regarding recourse to the provisions of the Industrial 'Courts Act on the question of pay?

Sir J. Simon: The provisions of the Industrial Courts Act, 1919, apply to all persons employed in a civil capacity under the Crown as to other classes of employés, but the special provisions of the Civil Service Arbitration Agreements apply only to recognised associations of Civil Servants within the scope of the National Whitley Council. As to the position of the Prison Officers Representative Board in relation to these agreements, I would refer the hon. Member to the


reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. McEntee) on 12th November last. As regards the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act, 1927, the statutory regulations made under Section 5 of that Act have been applied to all organisations of civil servants covered by the provisions of that Section. With reference to the second part of the question, I see no need to consult the Law Officers of the Crown in regard to the position of the Board.

Mr. G. Griffiths: asked the Home Secretary whether he will state approximately the percentage number of prison officers who attended the last duly convened meetings of the Prison Officers' Representative Board at Birmingham, Bristol, Dartmoor, Durham, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester (men and women), Parkhurst, and Wakefield prisons, respectively?

Sir J. Simon: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The percentages were as follow:


Birmingham
…
36


Bristol
…
72


Dartmoor
…
38


Durham
…
51


Leeds
…
29


Liverpool
…
16


Manchester, men
…
20


Manchester, women
…
24


Parkhurst
…
30


Wakefield
…
20

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACTS (CONSOLIDATION).

Mr. Chorlton: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Representation of the People Act, 1918, the principal Act, has been amended by amending Acts passed in 1918, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1926, 1928, and by the Local Government Acts of 1929 and 1933; and whether he will consider the advisability of consolidating these enactments into one Statute for the convenience of registration officials, candidates for Parliament, election agents, and the public generally, and as a preliminary to possible amendment of the law as regards the distribution of seats?

Sir J. Simon: I will have my hon. Friend's suggestion noted for consideration at a convenient opportunity.

Mr. Chorlton: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Consolidated Representation of the People Order S.R. and O. No. 1813 /1918, commonly referred to as R.P. 134, has been considerably amended and altered by subsequent orders, notably R.P. 142 and S.R. and O. 169/1935; and whether, for the convenience of registration officers and election agents in particular and of the public generally, he will have this R.P. Order brought up to date by a further consolidated issue?

Sir J. Simon: I am aware that the Representation of the People Order has been amended on several occasions since 1927, but I am not aware that any inconvenience has been caused by reason of the absence of a Consolidating Order.

CARDROOM WORKERS (RESPIRATORY ILLNESS, COMPENSATION).

Mr. Windsor: asked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to announce if he has set up a committee to consider a suitable compensation scheme for the diseases of bronchitis and asthma arising out of cardroom dust?

Sir J. Simon: Yes, Sir. Their names and terms of reference will be found in the answer which I gave on 24th March to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for the Royton Division of Lancashire (Mr. Sutcliffe).

POLICE IDENTIFICATION PARADES.

Lieut.-Colonel Moore: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the criticism which has recently been directed by judicial authorities at the present methods adopted in police identification parades, he will issue instructions as to how such parades should be carried out, so as to secure that justice is not impeded?

Sir J. Simon: The police already have full instructions as to the methods which should be followed in holding identification parades, and I do not consider that the issue of any further general instructions in this matter is necessary. If my


hon. and gallant Friend has in mind the comments made at the Sussex Assizes last month in regard to an individual case, I would refer him to the reply which I gave to a question by the hon. Member for the Stratford Division (Mr. Groves) on the 7th instant.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION, BLACKPOOL.

Mr. Thurtle: asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the scheme of the Blackpool education committee which involves the giving of religious instruction of a denominational character to children of public elementary schools which are undenominational in character; whether he has received any protests from teachers' organisations regarding this scheme; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Oliver Stanley): My attention has been drawn to the situation which has arisen at Blackpool. I have received no protests from teachers' organisations on the matter, and I do not think that occasion has arisen for any action on my part.

Mr. Thurtle: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care that no improper coercion is employed upon teachers to compel them to escort these children to the various churches, and has his Department satisfied itself that this scheme does not contravene the law governing the nature of religious instruction to be given at non-sectarian schools?

Mr. Stanley: The matter has not been officially brought to my notice by either side, but certainly I will see that no improper action is taken.

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a meeting has already been arranged between the Blackpool local education authority and the National Union of Teachers with a view to bringing about a friendly solution of this matter?

Mr. Stanley: Yes. I was aware of that, and it seems to me an admirable and a sensible thing to do.

INFANT CLASSES.

Mr. Harvey: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he can give details of the number of classes in infant schools in England and Wales in which more than 40 children are being taught in one class?

Mr. Stanley: On 31st March, 1936, the latest date for which figures are yet available, there were 13,638 classes in separate infant departments in public elementary schools in England and Wales with more than 40 children on the books.

Mr. Harvey: In view of the large number of children in these classes will the Minister bring some pressure on local authorities to reduce them?

Mr. Stanley: There has been a fairly consistent fall during the last two or three years.

Viscountess Astor: The fall may be consistent but it is very slow. Will the President bring a scheme before the House so that this cannot happen, and that infant classes can be turned into open-air nursery classes? It is absolutely impossible for a woman to deal with 40 children under the age of seven. It is a waste of money.

Mr. Stanley: I will consider it.

FILMS.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the President of the Board of Education whether the recent deputation from the British Film Institute submitted specific proposals to his Department for the development of the use of films as an aid to education; if so, what the proposals were; and what further action he intends to take in the matter?

Mr. Stanley: The discussion which took place two days ago with representatives of the British Film Institute was of an informal nature, and suggestions which were made on both sides for the development of the use of films as an aid to education are being considered by the Board and by the institute.

Mr. Day: Will the President see that the films which are accepted are British films, and not films made in foreign countries?

Oral Answers to Questions — MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL (TENDERS FOR CONTRACT).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Health whether he can give the House any information connected with the nine tenders for a contract for £16,099 for the Middlesex County Council, all of which tenders were identical in amount; whether he has received any information from the chief clerk to the Middlesex County Council about the matter; and whether he intends taking any action?

Sir K. Wood: In connection with an application for sanction to the raising of a loan to defray the cost of certain works at the Central Middlesex County Hospital of the Middlesex County Council, a list of tenders obtained by the council has recently been submitted to me by official letter from the clerk of the council. The list shows 11 tenders in all, of which nine were of the amount mentioned in the question. I am asking the council for their observations on the matter.

Mr. Thorne: I take it that the Minister knows about several other cases. Is he aware that on a recent occasion the Hertfordshire County Council received six tenders which were exactly the same to a farthing?

Sir Percy Harris: Does not this suggest something like conspiracy on the part of contractors to exploit local authorities in their own interest?

Sir K. Wood: I would not like to think so.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Instead of asking for the observations of the county council would it not be better that they should ask the right hon. Gentleman for his observations?

Sir K. Wood: I hardly think so.

Oral Answers to Questions — STREET WORKS, BISHOP'S WALTHAM.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Health what action he intends taking in connection with the making and repairing of Doods Alley at Bishop's Waltham, Hampshire; and whether he is aware that the inhabitants have made many complaints to the rural district council about the state of the road along which many school children have to go?

Sir K. Wood: I am informed by the Hampshire County Council, who are the highway authority for the area, that they are not satisfied that this way is repairable at the public expense. I have no power to require them to take action, but I am communicating further with them.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Health the number of cases of widows whose husbands died before the passing of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Pensions Act, and who were given a pension which has been stopped since, and who will not become entitled to renewal until they attain the age of 55?

Sir K. Wood: Exact figures are not available, but it is estimated that the number of widows in this class in Great Britain who, having ceased to be entitled to pensions on the youngest child attaining the specified age, will again become entitled if and when they attain the age of 55, provided they have not remarried, is in the neighbourhood of 40,000.

Mr. Guy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a considerable number of these widows have to apply for public assistance?

Sir K. Wood: I thought the hon. Member was more interested in spinsters.

Mr. Sexton: asked the Minister of Health how many widows of insured men were awarded pensions at the age of 55 years under the terms of the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act for the years 1934, 1935, and 1936, respectively?

Sir K. Wood: The number of widows who were awarded pensions on reaching the age of 55, as the widows of men in the insurable class who died before the inception of the scheme of contributory pensions, was 6,632 in 1934, 6,344 in 1935 and 6,900 in 1936. The figures relate to England only.

Oral Answers to Questions — BLIND PERSONS BILL.

Lieut.-Commander Tufnell: asked the Minister of Health when he anticipates being able to introduce the promised Bill to amend the Blind Persons Act, 1920,


by making it compulsory on county councils to administer relief to the blind under the Act instead of through public assistance; and also when it is intended to introduce the promised Bill to give old age pensions to the blind at the age of 40?

Sir K. Wood: I regret that I am not in a position to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) on 8th March last.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADSTONE AND GRAVEL QUARRIES (LOCAL AUTHORITIES).

Mr. Peat: asked the Minister of Health how many county and other local authorities in England and Wales own or work roadstone or gravel quarries; what accounts are published; and whether he will insist on the publication of the details of costs, including the correct proportion of the general overhead costs of the authority, so that the ratepayers may compare the final cost of the stone with contract prices and so ascertain whether the quarry is carried on at a loss or a profit?

Sir K. Wood: I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport that about 20 county councils own or work quarries in connection with road works assisted from the Road Fund. So far as I am aware no separate accounts of this working are published, but I understand that the materials used are generally charged to the highways account on the basis of ascertained cost. As regards the last part of the question, I will consult my right hon. Friend and communicate with my hon. Friend.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the West Riding of Yorkshire have dealt with this matter and have brought down their contract price by 2S. 6d. per ton?

Sir K. Wood: No, but I am glad to hear it.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

INDIRECT TAXATION.

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there is any change in the percentages of total income paid in taxation in the case of annual earned incomes of £100,£500,£1,000, and

£10,000 from what they were as at the date of the report of the Colwyn Committee, when these percentages were 11.9, 6.2, 11.0, and 31.0, respectively; if so, what are the present percentages in each case; and whether he will have in view, when finally deciding on the incidence of taxation for the current financial year, the relatively heavy burden borne by persons of small means?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Chamberlain): The amount of indirect taxation borne by individuals depends largely on their different personal tastes and the Colwyn Committee were careful to state that the tables on pages 94 and 95 of their report of November, 1926, had no official authority. In view of the great labour involved in bringing the tables up to date and of the hypothetical character of the result I do not feel justified in having their preparation undertaken. In reply to the latter part of the question, I can only say that all relevant considerations will be borne in mind.

Mr. Gibson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that since the date of the report of the Colwyn Committee indirect taxation on those with lower incomes has considerably increased?

SURTAX.

Mr. Mander: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what Parliamentary authority returns for Surtax for the year ending 5th April, 1937, are now being demanded?

Mr. Chamberlain: I would refer the hon. Member to the provisions of Section 210 of the Income Tax Act, 1918, and of Section 14 of the Finance Act, 1936.

MONETARY POLICY.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how long the Government intend to continue their present monetary policy, seeing that the supply of capital in Britain is being reduced and that there is no corresponding increase in the Bank Rate; and will the lack of resources in the money market be filled by artificially-created currency?

Mr. Chamberlain: I cannot accept the suggestions in my hon. Friend's question that the supply of capital is being reduced and that there is a lack of resources in the money market. As regards the future of our monetary policy, I would


refer him to the reply given to his questions on 12th April, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. De la Bère: Is it the intention of the Government to continue the unorthodox and unhappy experiment in finance on which they have been engaged for the last few weeks?

INDIA.

Mr. Day: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what way the Government propose to give any further financial assistance to the Government of India, either by way of guarantee or otherwise; and what is the limit set by the Government on any contingent liability?

Mr. Chamberlain: The hon. Member's question appears to rest on a misconception. No financial assistance by His Majesty's Government to the Government of India has been given or is proposed.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE REVENUE.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the estimated amounts in Customs and Excise revenue per head of the population of Great Britain for the year ended March, 1936, in respect of food, drink, and tobacco?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): The estimated amounts of taxation in Customs and Excise revenue per head of the population of Great Britain for the year ended 31st March, 1936, in respect of food, drink, and tobacco were as follow:



£
s.
d.


Food (including tea, coffee and cocoa)
0
15
6


Drink (alcoholic liquors, table waters and fruit juices)
2
5
7


Tobacco
1
12
3


The Excise duties incidental to the manufacture and retail of articles included in the above-mentioned categories have been taken into account in framing these estimates. Items falling under Group B (namely, feeding-stuffs for animals) of Class 1 of the Official Trade Accounts have been excluded. Some of the items in other groups in this class (e.g. wheat, barley, oats) have been included in full, although an unknown quantity is used as feeding-stuffs for animals.

Viscountess Astor: Will the Financial Secretary also bear in mind that, in spite of the taxation on the drink trade, the profits are £7,000,000 more than in 1932, and that convictions for drunkenness have gone up by 24 per cent.?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL ART TREASURES (EXPORT).

Mr. Hannah: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Government to take steps to forbid the export of national art treasures?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: A committee of the National Gallery Trustees under the chairmanship of the late Lord Curzon reported on this subject in 1913 (Command Paper 7878, 1915) and recommended that legislation was inadvisable. The matter has been further considered on several occasions since that date and the view that legislation is undesirable has been maintained. My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that as regards objects of national interest generally, the existing exemptions from Death Duties are designed to secure the retention of such objects in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

EX-SERVICE MEN.

Mr. Kelly: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any or all of the 10,000 posts in the Civil Service to be filled by ex-service men are to be new posts, or whether they will be posts already existing and at present occupied; and, if the former, what will be the anticipated percentage of new posts?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers which I gave on 6th April to the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) and on 8th April to the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield).

Mr. Kelly: Did that reply indicate whether there are new posts or whether these men are going to take up positions now occupied by others?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The answer which I gave indicated that it would not in any way prejudice the tenure of the


posts now held. It was expected that there would be a certain expansion. I cannot give the exact percentage.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Will the men who were enlisted under the Derby Scheme and who were not allowed to go out to the front, be included in those 10,000?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I think that is another question.

AIR MINISTRY.

Major Hills: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what difference the adoption of the principle of aggregation by the Air Ministry will make to the claims of the women now serving in the Department, and whether the higher clerical officers introduced by transference from other Departments are men or women?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Sir Philip Sassoon): The principle of aggregation is accepted by the Air Ministry, but its application must be related to the special organisation of a Defence Department, and to the opportunities for advancement to higher posts which under this organisation are open to civil servants of both sexes. This is a consideration which cannot be ignored when invitations are issued for officers to transfer from other Departments; and the transference of senior women higher clerical officers would in practice have affected the prospects of the women now serving in the Department (who have only recently come into the zone for promotion to higher clerical officer) to a greater extent than would appear on paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

GOVERNMENT POLICY.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Government have a peace-time policy to restore prosperity to the land, increase production, store up fertility of the soil and put it once again into good heart?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 6th April to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton).

Mr. De la Bère: Have the Government any policy as regards agriculture, and is he not aware that those in the agricultural

districts are eating out their hearts for lack of assistance?

POTATOES.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the hardship being caused to many small farmers by the restrictions imposed by the Potato Marketing Board; that potatoes are, in some instances, the only possible follow-on crop; and, in the interests of the nation's food supplies as well as of the small farmer, will he make representations to the Potato Marketing Board that where an application for an increased allocation is shown to be reasonable and practical it should be granted without a penalty?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: In general, the basic acreages of producers registered under the Potato Marketing Scheme were based on the area of land under potatoes in 1933, which was exceptionally high. The scheme provides, moreover, that in any case of exceptional hardship or unusual circumstances the board may allot such basic acreage as they think proper. I have no reason to believe that the board are exercising their powers in an unreasonable manner and the growers to whom my hon. Friend refers might be advised to put their cases to the board.

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consider the advisability of suspending the fine of £5 per acre now being imposed on British farmers who produce potatoes over the quota permitted to them, in view of the increasing prices and shortage of potato crops now being met by heavy imports?

Mr. Morrison: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 8th April to questions on this subject.

Mr. Mander: In view of the serious effects which the increase in the cost of potatoes is having on the food of the poor, particularly in the fish-and-chip shops throughout the country, will not the right hon. Gentleman consider taking action, by legislation or otherwise, to remove this penal legislation?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member seems to imagine that the acreage under cultivation is the prime factor in determining productivity. As a matter of fact, if the basic acreage were now employed, the yield would be 4,680,000 tons as com-


pared with the actual production of 3,800,000 tons. The real question is the productivity. I would remind the hon. Member also that nothing the board can do at this stage can affect the main crop of potatoes for 1936.

WHEAT SUBSIDY.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Minister of Agriculture when an advance payment is going to be made in respect of the wheat subsidy, and what the advance will amount to per quarter for wheat sold by farmers last autumn at less than 35s. per quarter?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The Wheat Commission will make an advance payment to registered growers on or about 17th April in respect of all Wheat certificates delivered to the commission on or before 18th March. This advance will be at a uniform rate of 8d. per cwt. equal to 3s. per quarter of 504 lbs.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORY, CHORLEY.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware of the long distances the workmen have to travel who are engaged on the air factory scheme at Chorley; whether attempts are being made to provide housing accommodation; and whether he will consider making some allowance for travelling expenses until this is done?

Sir James Blindell (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the Royal Ordnance Factory at Chorley. If so, the answer to the first

Permanent Commissions.
Short Service Commissions.


—
Total.
Number granted to University Candidates.
Percentage of Total.


1934–35
…
…
…
124
28
22·6
230


1935–36
…
…
…
151
25
16·6
809


1936–37
…
…
…
304
26
8·6
1,115

part of the question is in the affirmative. The contractor is providing temporary wooden housing accommodation for boo men and canteens have already been erected to provide all the men with full meals. As good omnibus services exist, it is understood that a number of the men prefer to live at home. No allowances for travelling expenses are contemplated, which would in any case be a matter for the contractor and not for the Office of Works.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

OIL SUPPLY.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what quantity of oil produced from coal in this country was used by the Royal Air Force during the years 1934, 1935, and 1936, respectively?

Sir P. Sassoon: I am advised that it would not be in the public interest to give the information asked for.

COMMISSIONS.

Mr. Parker: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air (1) the number of permanent and of short-service commissions, respectively, granted in the Royal Air Force in each of the last three years;
(2) the number of permanent commissions granted to university candidates in each of the last three years, and the percentage these have formed in each year of the total number of permanent commissions granted?

Sir P. Sassoon: As tables of figures are involved, I am circulating a combined table in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the table:

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask what will be the business for next week, and also what is the purpose of the Motion for the suspension of the Rule to-night?

Sir J. Simon: Monday: Committee stage of the Special Areas (Amendment) Bill, and further consideration of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill.

Tuesday: The Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget.

Wednesday and Thursday: General Debate on the Budget Resolutions.

Friday: Consideration of private Members' Bills.

On any day, if there is time, progress will be made with other business.

We are moving the Suspension of the Eleven o' Clock Rule solely as a precaution. We hope to obtain the first four Orders, which are public Bills, and we also propose to take the fifth Order, which is the Report stage of Class VII (Building Votes).

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Sir J. Simon.]

The House divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 103.

Division No. 140.]
AYES.
[3.48 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Davison, Sir W. H.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Albery, Sir Irving
De la Bère, R.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.


Apsley, Lord
Danville, Alfred
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Doland, G. F.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Assheton, R.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Leckie, J. A.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Duggan, H. J.
Levy, T.


Balniel, Lord
Dunoan, J. A. L.
Lewis, O.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Dunglass, Lord
Liddall, W. S.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lindsay, K. M.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J J


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Elmley, Viscount
Lloyd, G. W.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Emery, J. F.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Loftus, P. C.


Bernays, R. H.
Errington, E.
Lyens, A. M.


Blindell, Sir J.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
McCorquodale, M. S.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Scot. U.)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Brass, Sir W.
Everard, W. L.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Fleming, E. L.
McKie, J. H.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Foot, D. M.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Furness, S. N.
Magnay, T.


Bull, B. B.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mander, G. le M.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Butler, R. A.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Granville, E. L.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Channon, H.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Grimston, R. V.
Morgan, R. H.


Christle, J. A.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Guy, J. C. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hannah, I. C.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Colman, N. C. D.
Hartington, Marquess of
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Harvey, Sir G.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Palmer, G. E. H.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Patrick, C. M.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Peat, C. U.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Petherick, M.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Critchley A
Holmes, J. S.
Porritt, R. W.


Crooke, J. S.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Rankin, Sir R.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Crossley, A. C.
Hulbert, N. J.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Culverwell, C. T.
Hunter, T.
Reid, Captain A. Cunningham


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)




Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Watt, G. S. H.


Ropner, Colonel L.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)
Wells, S. R.


Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Storey, S.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Rowlands, G.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Salt, E. W.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wise, A. R.


Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Scott, Lord William
Tate, Mavis C.
Wragg, H.


Seely, Sir H. M.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Selley, H. R.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Touche, G. C.



Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-


Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Turton, R. H.
Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.


Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hayday, A.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ridley, G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Ritson, J.


Ammon, C. G.
Hollins, A.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hopkin, D.
Rowson, G.


Banfield, J. W.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Sanders, W. S.


Barnes, A. J.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sexton, T. M.


Barr, J.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Short, A.


Batey, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Silkin, L.


Bellenger, F. J.
Kelly, W. T.
Silverman, S. S.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Brooke, W.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Leach, W.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Buchanan, G.
Lee, F.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cassells, T.
Leonard, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'gnt'n-le-Sp'ng)


Charleton, H. C.
Leslie, J. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cluse, W. S.
Lunn, W.
Thorne, W.


Daggar, G.
McEntee, V. La T.
Thurtle, E.


Dalton, H.
McGhee, H. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Maclean, N.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Marshall, F.
Walker, J.


Day, H.
Mathers, G.
Walkins, F. C.


Dobbie, W.
Maxton, J.
Watson, W. McL.


Ede, J. C.
Milner, Major J.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Edwards, Sir C (Bedwellty)
Montague, F.
Welsh, J. C.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood, J.


Gardner, B. W.
Muff, G.
White, H. Graham


Gibbins, J.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Parker, J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Potts, J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pritt, D. N.



Hardie, G. D.
Quibell, D. J. K.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.-




Mr, Whiteley and Mr. Groves.


Resolutions agreed to.

CLYDE SHIPBUILDING DISPUTE.

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely:
The proposed stoppage of work to-morrow of the workers employed in the Clyde shipbuilding and engineering works, and the serious consequences that will arise.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the proposed stoppage of work to-morrow of the workers employed in the Clyde shipbuilding and engineering works, and the serious consequences that will arise. I am afraid that is a subject upon which

I cannot allow the Motion for the Adjournment under Standing Order No. 8. The Government have no obligation whatever to interfere in industrial disputes. The same Ruling has always been given when similar requests for the Adjournment have been made on that subject.

Mr. Maxton: Have the Government no responsibility for seeing that the engineering work, a large proportion of which is on Government orders, is carried on without interruption?

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Member questioning my Ruling?

Mr. Maxton: I understand that you are refusing to accept my hon. Friend's Motion on the ground that it is a matter


on which the Government have no responsibility. I am putting it to you that, having regard to the nature of the work that is being carried on on the Clyde at the present time, the Government have a very serious responsibility, and that therefore that brings the Motion within the Standing Order.

Mr. Speaker: The Government have an interest in it, but no direct obligation to interfere in the dispute.

Mr. C. Williams: On that point of Order, does not the hon. Member's argument really mean the application of conscription of labour?

BILLS REPORTED.

RICHMOND (SURREY) CORPORATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

HASTINGS CORPORATION GENERAL POWERS BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Group F of Private Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

ABERYSTWYTH RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Group G of Private Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C (added in respect of the Physical Training and Recreation Bill): Mr. Cove; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. George Griffiths.

STANDING COMMITTEE D.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing

Committee D: Mr. Jenkins; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Cove.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,

Deaf Children (School Attendance) Bill (changed to "Education (Deaf Children) Bill"), with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Barnet District Gas and Water Company to construct new waterworks and to raise additional capital; to adjust the boundaries of the Company's water limits; to make better provision with respect to the repair and maintenance of pipes for the supply of water within the water limits; to extend the Company's gas limits; and for other purposes." [Barnet District Gas and Water Bill [Lords].

BARNET DISTRICT GAS AND WATER BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

EDUCATION (DEAF CHILDREN) BILL (changed from "DEAF CHILDREN (SCHOOL ATTENDANCE) BILL").

Lords Amendments to be considered upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 120.]

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

3.57 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Elliot): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The Bill has four main objects. First it fixes the amount of the Exchequer contribution given by way of block grant to Scottish local authorities. It fixes that for a period of five years. Secondly, it relieves local authorities in Scotland of the payment of contributions under Section 45 of the Unemployment Act, 1934, thereby, I hope, bringing a long argument to an end. Thirdly, it makes provision respecting the calculation of the grant in future fixed grant periods; and, lastly, it amends the formula on the basis of which the larger part of the block grant is distributed among the local authorities. It will be remembered that among the reforms effected by the Act of 1929 was the abolition of the percentage and the assigned revenue grants. There was also carried through the de-rating of agricultural and industrial lands and heritages. There was made available to the local authorities a sum equal to the losses of revenue thus incurred and, in addition, £750,000 worth of new money. That Act provided that the grant should be distributed to the local authorities in the earlier years, partly in proportion to the losses of income which resulted from those reforms, and partly by reference to the new formula which was designed to distribute the grant in proportion to needs; and it was also stated that later the money would be distributed wholly by reference to needs.
As those who have studied the subject are aware, and the remainder of the House may wish to be reminded—for I would not say that everyone is personally familiar with the Act of 1929—the fundamental principle on which the system w as based was that the expenditure of the local authorities in general varies with the size of the population, but that certain classes and conditions of population require more than the average expenditure. In arriving at an allocation of the block grant to the counties and large

burghs the population is weighted in relation to the numbers of young children under five years of age, in relation to low rateable value, in relation to unemployment and in relation lo sparsity of population, which is calculated per mile of road. The figures of population were thus weighted so as to take account of these factors wherever they occur either to create abnormal expenditure, as in the case of young children under five, or, as in the case of low rateable value, to hamper the poorer local authorities by yoking them, so to speak, unequally together with their fellows. In the early years of the operation of the new system about one-third of tie block grant was distributed on this basis. The transfer to the new system, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, increases this proportion, and from 15th May next more than half of the block grant will be so distributed.
Now we come to the actual sums involved. With regard to the amount of grant in the next five years, the Bill proposes an annual sum of £6,827,000 per annum, and that is £600,000 more than in the previous grant period. In addition it proposes to relieve local authorities of their liability to make payments towards the cost of unemployment assistance, which is a liability amounting now to about £745,000 per annum. Furthermore, no account is taken, in arriving at this general Exchequer contribution, of the relief afforded to county councils by the taking over of trunk roads, which amounts to about £90,000 per annum. It will thus be seen that the local authorities in Scotland will be better off in the next fixed grant period to the extent of £1,435,000 a year, than they are at the present time—a very substantial sum.
If in Scotland deductions in respect of unemployment contributions and trunk roads had been made on the same basis as in England, there would have been a decrease instead of an increase. The decrease would have amounted to £268,000 a year in the grant for the third period as compared with the second grant period. The difference between that decrease of £268,000 a year and the increase of £600,000 a year proposed in the Bill amounts to 068,000 per annum, and that is the measure of the special Exchequer relief which, if the Bill is passed, will be


made available to Scotland. This is not being found by taking money from the well-to-do areas for the benefit of the poorer areas; it is not being found by making Edinburgh carry Glasgow. Edinburgh and the other relatively more prosperous areas are getting their full share of relief.
Let me illustrate the point by giving some of the reliefs which various areas are being afforded as a result of the increase in their grant under the Bill. Here are some of the counties: The relief in Aberdeenshire will be £36,000 a year, which is equivalent to a rate of is. 2d. in the £; Argyllshire, £17,000, equal to a rate of rod. in the £; Lanarkshire, £94,000, equivalent to 1s. in the £; West Lothian, £14,600, equal to 8d. in the £; Banff, £30,000, equal to 3s. 1d. in the £. Take the more highly rural areas. Caithness gets £14,000 a year, which is equal to a 3s. 2d. rate; Ross and Cromarty, £25,000 a year, equal to a 2s. 6d. rate; Shetland, £7,000, equal to a rate of nearly 3s. 5d. in the £. The Lowland counties, Kincardine and Renfrew, also get large sums, in Kincardine equivalent to a rate of 9d., and in Renfrew equivalent to 4d. in the £. I have a list of the counties here, but I am afraid of wearying the House by reading them all. It is my wish to keep to the 20 minutes' ration which is desired for Scottish speakers.

Mr. James Brown: Are all the counties and districts that are not mentioned to get nothing?

Mr. Elliot: No. Many of them are getting very substantial sums indeed. I do not wish to go over all the counties, but counties such as Ayr are getting very large sums. There is no county I have left out which has been left out because it is not getting relief. Let me now give one or two figures for the burghs: Airdrie, £12,000 a year, equal to a 1s. 8d. rate; Paisley, £21,000, equal to an 8d. rate; Dumbarton, £9,500, equal to a 1s. 5d. rate; Greenock, £33,000, equal to a 1s. 2d. rate; Edinburgh, £98,000, equal to a 4d. rate. Even Aberdeen burgh is getting £53,000 a year, the equivalent of an 8d. rate; and Port Glasgow gets £17,000, which is equal to a 3s. 3d. rate.

Mr. Maxton: Why is the Port Glasgow figure relatively so much higher?

Mr. Elliot: Because of the great need which exists there the poverty in that area and the high calls which are made upon the rates in that area. In accordance with the formula Port Glasgow will receive this very large relief.

Sir Douglas Thomson: Why does my right hon. Friend say "even Aberdeen"?

Mr. Elliot: Because it is well known that Aberdeen is very careful of its money and looks after itself very well indeed. It has been said by the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk burghs (Mr. Westwood) that the local authorities are not enjoying rating relief equivalent to the figures I have mentioned. These figures are equivalents, and I am giving no undertaking that the local authorities concerned will in fact reduce, or are able to reduce, the rates by these amounts.

Mr. Westwood: These figures by way of relief are given on the assumption that the whole of the cost under the new able-bodied relief system is being removed from the local authorities?

Mr. Elliot: These are the sums which are actually being found by the Treasury in one form or another for the local authorities. They are actually to get these sums.

Mr. Westwood: Are not the figures based on the assumption that the 60 per cent. contribution of the local authorities for the Unemployment Assistance Board is now taken over by the State?

Mr. Elliot: The rates equivalents I have mentioned are calculated on the assumption that the whole of the new assistance is equated to rate reliefs including the assistance derived from the repeal of Section 45 of the Unemployment Act. Whatever the local authorities were paying under Section 45, they will not pay in future, and the calculations are made as I have stated. I do not wish to suggest that the rate reliefs will be equivalent to these sums. I am giving some of the examples of what the proposals mean to the authorities concerned. I have heard it said that Glasgow's amount is over £500,000 a year. I beg the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Macclean), who interjected a remark just now, not to press me on the point, because I think the second city in the Empire has done reasonably well out of the proposals.

Mr. Neil Maclean: The Glasgow Corporation does not think so.

Mr. Elliot: The council's representatives considered that this was a reasonable and satisfactory bargain when I met representatives of the Scottish local authorities. It may be said that local authority expenditure is already on the way to absorb many of these reliefs, that there has been, for example, a considerable increase in the cost of poor relief in recent years. That is true, but that is to say that in the main the citizens, and especially the poorer ones, are enjoying advantages which they did not previously have. The rise in the cost of social services is due to a number of causes. To some extent it is due to the increased numbers in receipt of poor relief because of the long continued depression. But there are other causes, for example the disregarding of the first 5s. of sick pay and the first 7s. 6d. of National Health Insurance, the first £1 of wound and disability pension, the whole of a maternity allowance and so forth. Relief is on a higher standard. Every encouragement is given to local authorities to administer poor relief with a sympathetic regard to the needs of individuals, and the mere fact that that is happening is not any reason for condemning these proposals and financial arrangements.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that the rise since 1931, from £600,000 roughly to over £2,500,000, in poor relief in Glasgow alone, was due only to the rise in standards of relief?

Mr. Elliot: I do not say it was due only to rising standards, but I do suggest that the rise in standards has played a very large part. If we examine the figures of the able-bodied poor during that time, we find that in the last three years the numbers have fallen. It is true that the numbers of other classes of poor have risen and that is very largely due to some of those provisions which have been quoted to the House.
Take another example. In recent years more and more attention has been given to the question of the health and nutrition of those who come under the social services. That costs money. But it is not waste; we get a return for it; and the Poor Law has played its part in maintaining the standard of health of the people. Everyone

is familiar with the improved death rate, the increased expectation of life, the improved heights and weights of school children. We are dealing with large sums, but these large sums are sums for which we have value. Take one figure, from a recent report of the Medical Officer of Health for Glasgow. He points out that boys of nine years of age in room and kitchen houses are two inches taller and four pounds heavier than boys from similar houses in 1907; and that at 13 years of age they are 2·7 inches taller and nine pounds heavier. The girls show even greater improvements. It is on these smaller houses that the weight of depression has lain most heavily. It is only fair to give credit to the social services for the improved physique which is now shown by the children. Let me say again, however, that the increase in the total amount of rate-borne expenditure would only have warranted an increase in the total grant of a little more than £500,000. Under the Bill the relief to local authorities will be nearly £1,500,000.
As I have mentioned, the whole of the block grants will eventually be allocated among the counties and large burghs on a basis which has regard solely to the needs of each area. For that purpose there is to be calculated for each area a figure of weighted population which determines the share of that area of the total sum available. In our review of the position a formula has been worked out which has more regard to the needs of the poorer areas. Greater weight is given to unemployment and sparsity, and so substantial additional assistance will be provided for areas which stand in the greatest need of it—that is, industrial areas where unemployment is high, and poor and sparsely populated districts like the Islands and Highlands. By the great increases in the grants and the variations in the formula it will be possible, not only to achieve this object without prejudice to the interests of the local authorities elsewhere in Scotland, but to provide increases to practically every area in Scotland.
I now turn to the Bill itself. Clause r provides for the total amount of the General Exchequer Contribution, and it is, in fact, the gist of the Bill. The Clause also lays down a new minimum proportion of grants to expenditure and provides for the repeal of Section 45 of


the Unemployment Act. With regard to that minimum proportion, the special relief which has been given to Scotland involves a departure in subsequent grant periods from the provisions of Section 53 of the Act of 1929. That was the Section which laid down the minimum proportion of grant to expenditure. The House can see that if the unemployment contribution and the sum in respect of trunk roads had been deducted from the normal grant, the amount of the grants would have been £5,960,000, and the minimum proportion 23·4 per cent. Clause 1 provides a minimum proportion of 24·6 per cent. with a view to securing the continuance of a substantial proportion of the special relief for Scotland in subsequent grant periods. If the special factors for which allowances have been made disappear entirely, the Scottish authorities might have found a sudden diminution in income in the next grant period for which they had not made provision. This will be obviated by the fact that we have provided for a rather higher minimum than would otherwise have been the case.
Clause 2 provides for the substitution of the revised formula for the existing formula. The new formula is more heavily weighted for unemployment and sparsity. Clause 3 provides that in consequence of the changes in the formula, the weighted population of the first fixed grant period shall be calculated for the purpose of Additional Exchequer Grant as if the revised formula had been operative. It also provides for mitigating reductions in the Additional Grants where there has been a fall in the weighted population. There has been a fall, for instance, in the number of children under five, and that produces a considerable fall in the weighted population of the county; and that and other instances might bear heavily on a county with expenditure which it was not possible to reduce in proportion.
Clause 4 does not affect the amount of the grant payable to the local authorities, but contains provision with regard to the allocation of certain portions of the grant within the county in respect of special rates. With regard to Clause 5, under the 1929 Act all counties gained, but all portions of a county did not gain equally. It was accordingly provided

that the losses in any year should be made up as to half by a contribution from the Exchequer, and as to half by contributions from the gaining areas. It was also laid down that after the first five years these contributions would be reduced by one-fifteenth every year so that they would disappear in 15 years. Certain areas represented that annual reductions of one-fifteenth might cause hardship, and consequently Clause 5 provides that if a council satisfies me that there would be hardship in any area, I may make modifications by ordering a reduction of one-thirtieth instead of one-fifteenth. I do not think that there will be many such cases.
Clause 6 takes the place of Section 72 of the 1929 Act. While carrying out the investigation under that Section, the local authorities asked that, in view of the proposed alterations in the formula, which are designed to meet economic conditions existing in some areas, and in view of the possibilities of substantial improvement in certain areas, the working of the formula and the method of distribution within the counties should be again reviewed. This Clause provides for such an investigation. Sub-section (1) relates to the subjects of the investigation, and Sub-section (2) provides that the investigation may take place in whole or in part at the end of the third or fourth fixed grant period as may be determined. I contemplate that the time of the investigation will be fixed in consultation with the representatives of the local authorities. The local authorities of Scotland which have derived such great advantage from the last investigation are particularly interested in the question of a further investigation before any changes are made.
The estimates set out in the White Paper show that the Bill will give substantial additional assistance to the areas which stand in greatest need of it. The total additional relief amounts to nearly £1,500,000, and over £1,000,000 will be devoted to the necessitous areas. Substantial assistance also will be given even to the less needy areas. The local authority representatives, for whose cooperation in the investigation I am very grateful, agree that the results are very satisfactory. I trust that the House will think so too.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. Westwood: The right hon. Gentleman made special reference to the 1929 Local Government (Scotland) Act. But for that Act there would have been no necessity to introduce a Bill of this kind. He described that Act as a reform. With its derating provisions, however, it was one of the most reactionary pieces of legislation ever placed on the Statute Book, particularly in its application to the finances of local administrative bodies. The Bill which we are discussing provides money for the general services of our local authorities in Scotland, with the exception of education which is provided for from another source, and with the exception of public assistance which is provided for from no source, but is a burden which has to be borne entirely by local ratepayers. Special reference has been made by the right hon. Gentleman to the work done by the Investigation Committee, but that committee has no power to deal with the justice of the amount that was being provided nor with the services that were to be brought into the calculations. I can speak with some knowledge of that because I was, fortunately or unfortunately, one of the Investigating Committee. The formula which the right hon. Gentleman has now placed before the House in the Bill is very complicated, and I will not attempt to deal with it. I noted that the Secretary of State himself skipped ably round it and did not try to deal with its constituent parts.
I wish it had been possible, in dealing with the distribution of the money available for the local authorities in Scotland, to have had something far simpler than this formula, something as simple as the formula that was applied by the Education Department in the distribution of the Education Fund of Scotland, A boy in the first standard in a Scottish school could easily have understood that formula. The number of schools with pupils numbering less than 40 are taken first, and then the number of teachers and pupils are considered. In order to meet the needs of the distressed areas, you simply made a deduction of the rate per £ so as to enable fairness to be applied in the distribution of the fund. It was an easily understood formula. Here, however, we have such a formula that the Secretary of State himself, I think, would find it difficult to pass with full marks if he were

to try to deal with it. It is the result of the application of the formula that really matters in the distribution of these sums of money, and the Committee which carried through the investigation were satisfied that the money available—then £800,000—could not be more equitably distributed than it was being distributed by the application of the formula under discussion.
The Secretary of State has made special reference to the financial result of the adoption of the recommendation which is shown in Appendix 5 of the White Paper. The benefits to which he has referred, however—the 3s. 3d. per £ reduction in rates, or, as in the case of Falkirk, 5d. reduction, or, as in the case of Stirling, 9d. reduction—entirely depend upon whether the whole of the cost of the Unemployment Assistance Board assistance is now to be borne by this fund or by the National Exchequer. Let us see whether that is how it is working out. I find that instead of being relieved of the present burden of approximately £5,000 a year in respect of the relief of the able-bodied poor, we shall be relieved only of £3,000.
Let me give the position of affairs under that authority, dealing first with payments in cash. On 26th March, 1937, there were four cases in suspense, on which the total outlay was £5 7s. 3d., the town cases numbered 188, on which payments amounted to £174 15s. 11d., and there were 12 other-authority cases on which payments amounted to £10 7s. 6d. In cases where there was payment-in-kind, there were 11 town cases, on which the outlay was £6 16s. 9d., and one other-authority case on which the payment was 15s. There was a total of 216 cases with a weekly liability of £198 2s. 5d. What is to be the position under the new proposals? It is the Unemployment Assistance Board which determines which cases it will take over. It is not taking over full liability, as local authorities were led to believe. Local authorities have rights of appeal, but not to this House, nor to any tribunal other than that set up by the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934.
Here is the result as it applies to the town to which I am referring, and which is typical of Falkirk, Stirling and the other large boroughs—I am speaking from the large borough point of view.


Dealing first with payments in cash, on 2nd April, 1937, after the transfers to the Unemployment Assistance Board, we are left with one case for which we are paying 5s. and of town cases we are left with 84. The Board have taken only 104 cases and left us with 84, and the cost to the ratepayers is £73 14s. Of the other-authority cases they have taken only six and left us with six, the cost to the ratepayers being £4 1s. 6d. As regards payment-in-kind, they have taken over only five of the town cases and left us with six, and of the other-authority cases they have left us with one. Therefore, we are left with 98 cases out of a total of 216, and left with a burden of £83 19s. a week, when we had expected to be relieved of that charge under the pledges, or promises, that under the new formula the burden of able-bodied relief was to be removed from the shoulders of local authorities. To sum up this part of my case, the Unemployment Assistance Board have taken over 118 cases, or only 55 per cent. of the cases, at a weekly cost of £114 3s. 5d., or 56 per cent. of the cost. In addition, there are two cases still pending, on which the expenditure amounts to £3 3s. 6d. The public assistance officer intends to appeal against the decision not to take over eight cases, which affect us to the extent of£6 14s. The net result of all that is that we are left with a burden of £2,720 a year, which is approximately a rate of 2½d.
The Secretary of State made special reference to the increased charges which local authorities have to bear as a result of improvements in the law dealing with public assistance. Public assistance is not one of the ingredients of this formula. In the town which I have taken as an example, and which I have only selected because I happen to be a local administrator there and was thus able to get the figures more readily, the total number on the ordinary poor roll on 15th May, 1934, was 477, and on 15th May, 1936, it was 552, an increase of 75. I am not dealing with persons, but with cases. Then there were a number of old age pensioners; because if we set up a standard of relief for the ordinary recipients of public assistance we cannot allow old age pensioners to starve, and that is what it means, on the miserable 10s. a week provided as pension. On 15th May, 1934, the total number of old age pensioners being assisted by that authority was 276,

and on 15th May, 1936, the number was 347, an increase of 71. Taking the two classes together, in 1934 there were 753 cases and in 1936 889 cases, an increase of 146.
Let us see what difference the improvements have made in the cost to the local authority. I am not complaining about the improvements, which were long overdue, but the point is that in the formula there is no provision for the costs that have to be borne by the local authority in dealing with ordinary public assistance cases. The weekly outlay for these ordinary poor cases was £67 7s. on 15th May, 1934, and £89 2S. On 15th May, 1936, the increase being due to the alterations in the law. Those figures are equivalent to an annual expenditure of £3,502 4s. in 1934 and £4,633 4s. in 1936. As a result of those alterations in the law, we shall be compelled on 15th May of this year to budget for approximately £4,500 a year in respect of the ordinary poor. So far as Kirkcaldy is concerned, there will be practically no advantage derived from the alleged additional advantages provided by this Bill, and what applies in the case of Kirkcaldy applies equally in the case of Falkirk. The cost of public assistance in Falkirk next year will be approximately £6,000. All that they have been provided with under the formula is approximately £5,000, so that their rates are likely to be increased rather than reduced. So much for the alleged benefits given to local authorities by this Bill.
There is another department of local government for which this Bill makes no provision. There are the increased charges for policing—for the "speed cops" and the pedestrian crossings and Belisha beacons. We get only 50 per cent. of the expenditure from the Scottish Office and the other 50 per cent. has to be borne by the local ratepayers. There is before us now a Bill, which I am sure will go through, which will bring about a vast improvement in the maternity services in Scotland, but it will add to local burdens; provision will also have to be made for physical training and recreation; and then there is the increased cost of housing. The cost of new houses for which we have received estimates during the last month has risen by 10 to 15 per cent., and that increase has to be borne wholly and solely by the local ratepayers, unless the local autho-


rities are prepared to raise the rents, which are already high enough, having regard to the ability of the working-classes to pay.
It will be seen therefore that this Bill does not meet the increased costs which will fall upon local authorities. It provides no solution of the financial problems of local authorities. It is only a patch, just a little less porous than the other patches which have been provided to deal with this great problem of local expenditure. The whole question must be reviewed; a system of taxation ought to be introduced which would be just to local authorities. Even the gentleman who moved the vote of thanks to the Secretary of State when we were discussing this problem with him is one of the greatest advocates of a new system of finance to deal with the problems of local administration. I believe that almost any system would be better than the present —a local income tax for the purposes of local government, or, preferably, a Bill which would give us power to tax land values and enable the community to get for the community the benefits which have been created by the community. That would be better than the Government's derating legislation, which made the problems of local administration 10 times more difficult than they were previously. This Bill reminds me of a grace which I have more than once heard at a Christian Socialist's table:
For what we are about to receive make us truly thankful. For what we are entitled to get give us courage and strength to go on fighting until goodness and abundance are distributed to all.
So far as this Bill is concerned, we accept the little that is in it thankfully, because we did not expect to get so much from this Government. But we will go on nevertheless fighting until we have a better system of finance to deal with the problems of local government, and we will have the courage to go on fighting until we have a system at least for local purposes of taxation of land values.

4.46 p.m.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is one of the prime movers in the campaign for limiting the time of speeches and has taken the initiative in asking all speakers to keep their speeches within a limit of 15 minutes. Nevertheless I feel that so interesting was his speech that the House

would not willingly have forfeited one of the five minutes by which he has exceeded the limit, and, in case the hon. Member should feel the slightest embarrassment in having entrenched on the time allotted to him let me make to him a free gift of five of my minutes so that after that we shall start again all square and I shall keep within a limit of 10 minutes.
I do not rise to oppose this Bill. In the 10 minutes I have allotted myself I shall have no time to go into the larger question of the 1929 Act, of which, however, I am just as strong a critic as the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. The question that I think is before us is whether the work of revising the block grant has been well done, and I ought to tell the House quite frankly that I think it has. At the same time I think the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland will not think me ungenerous if I feel not altogether inclined to give him and the Government quite so much credit as he claims. It is my recollection of the 1929 Act that a statutory duty falls on the Government to maintain the statutory proportion between the total of grants and the total of grant and rate borne expenditure. If it is true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that local authorities have had imposed on them by the decisions of this House large measures of new expenditure since the 1929 Act was passed, it follows that it is the statutory duty of the Government to provide grants on a scale which would maintain the proportion between the grants and the total of grant and rate borne expenditure by the local authorities.
On what lines has this revision been conducted? It has been conducted, it is clear from the White Paper the Government issued, on the lines of ensuring that local authorities should be afforded, by means of the block grants, assistance which would vary with the needs of the local government services in different areas in relation to the ability of the areas to meet the needs. It is an endeavour to allocate grants scientifically in regard to the needs of the different areas. If the new measures taken by the Government had not been taken, the block grant would have been reduced—the right hon. Gentleman said by £268,000, but according to the White Paper by £245,000. It would have been reduced by one of those two substantial figures. It is now to be


increased by £600,000. A genuine effort has been made to meet the different interests of the different areas.
I want to draw the attention of the House to one broad result of that effort. If you take the six localities that have come best out of this revision of the block grant, Shetland, Port Glasgow, Caithness, Banff, Ross and Cromarty and Inverness, you will find that five of those six are in the Highland area. If this is the result of a scientific assessment of the need of the several authorities is it not amazing that those areas should not be entitled to benefits under the Special Areas Act, that they should not be treated as a Special Area by the Government?
I would only say, in conclusion, that I think the formula is good. It has stood the test of time but that does not abate my hostility to the 1929 Act. All the criticisms that I and other Members urged have, I feel, been vindicated by the passage of time. At every meeting of the Convention of Royal Burghs in Scotland strong hostility is expressed to this Act by the representatives of the burghs, and I hope the time will come when it will be radically amended. With one other opinion of the hon. Member who has just sat down I also agree. Just as under the 1929 Act we got derating for industries, prosperous and otherwise, and for farmers, so we ought to have derating for households, and that means the valuation of land, the rating of land values and the transference of the incidence of rating from improvements to site values. With those observations I welcome this Measure and shall be glad to support it.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. G. Hardie: I was surprised to find the last speaker saying that the formula had worked properly. The very fact that the formula has had to be amended proves that it did not meet the need. A formula is something that, when you apply it, always gives you the same result. If that formula is not efficient or sufficient you have got to change it, but it ceases to be the original formula. Then with the new formula you find the Secretary for Scotland hard put to it and trying to make a hush-hush in regard to certain moneys which have fallen to certain places. If the formula had worked properly, as it has not, there would be no need for any hush-hush. No area would have got

more than is really needed. But how can you call a thing a formula which fails to do what is said to be the function of the formula? The 1929 Government were in serious difficulties and wanted to camouflage the real truth. So they got a mathematician to make a camouflage formula. I congratulate him on the result. He did it very well indeed. He misled not only the Members of the Tory party, but all the Members of the Front Bench who had to deal with it tried to escape from it when it came up in the House.
If we wanted to find out where there is unemployment we would go to the Labour Exchanges and get the figures of people registered as unemployed. If we wanted to know the needs of those unemployed we would go to authorities who would give the facts. But that would be too straightforward. We send out a surveyor to measure the roads in order to find out whether someone is hungry or is not. It is like a couple of comedians called Flanagan and Allen. One says, "I have got a German Emperor in my bath room." The other says, "What do you mean?" "A Kaiser!" says the first one. "Oh," says the other one, "you mean a geyser." Of all the worst stupidities this is a winner, this formula. Even to-day you are not finding the need under the formula. You cannot do it. As was explained by the Secretary for Scotland the best reason for the differences in different districts is that the need is greater in some. But that need is not measured by the formula. It came through pressure by representatives here in London on the Scottish Office.
The formula has never worked. If it had, it would tell how much had gone in the way of relief as derating and it would have told where that had gone. I have figures in relation to the city of Glasgow in regard to premises that have been de-rated showing that the rent has increased exactly to the amount of derating that was given, in a great many instances taken from the Assessor's Roll. If we are dealing with the subject of distress in an area, suppose you take the upper parts of Lanarkshire, where it is said things are not so bad, the formula does not reach that area at all. There are in those villages, people of the real honest country type, who are suffering no end of torture. They have not had the associa-


tions that would enable them to get relief, but, if it had been a formula under which these things were searched out, there would have been no need for those people to be suffering. They and their needs would have been found and met. If we are to have a measurement of needs, why does not the Government adopt the direct method? If there is a hungry man anywhere requiring assistance he should get it. Why are such stupid factors as road measurement and the number of children under the age of five introduced into a formula which might have operated as a formula if it had been properly drawn up? The Secretary of State admitted that he had to go outside the formula, because of the greater need outside it. Should not that be sufficient for the Government to say, "Let us scrap this thing." It has failed everywhere. It has failed in the Highlands; it has failed in the big cities with their industrial unemployment. What is to happen to your "rejects" under this Measure—those who are outside the Unemployment Assistance Board and unemployment insurance? These are to come under something else. I hope that the Government will see to it that this is the last time for us to discuss in this House such an unfortunate thing as that which has been called a formula.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. Guy: I am rather surprised at the attack made by the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) against the formula under the 1929 Act. It is perfectly clear that, though it may not be an ideal formula, it has worked, and under this Bill the formula will work better. It is weighted in favour of the Highland counties, not because of the volume of unemployment which might qualify them to be classified as Special Areas, but very largely because of the great mileage of roads in those areas. One rather curious point about the formula is the consideration given to the number of children under the age of five. I discovered that the reason for that is that Edinburgh has a relatively small number of children under the age of five and does rather badly under the formula compared with other areas. That is clear from the figures given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The unemployment in Edinburgh is not nearly so bad as elsewhere, and we make no complaint, because Edinburgh did not get as much

as other areas under the formula. We consider the equity of the formula is justified. It is based on the principle that the greater proportion of Treasury money should go to the areas whose need is the greater. The needy areas will get a considerably larger sum of money, and while the local authorities, owing to the increased expenditure placed on them, might not be able to lower their rates I am not surprised that they welcome this Measure for the help which it will bring to them from the Treasury.

5.6 p.m.

Sir Robert Horne: I should be ungrateful if I did not express my appreciation of the trouble to which the Government has gone to meet some of the objections raised by myself and by hon. Friends opposite. We have been urging on the Government for some time that the amount of relief given worked out inequitably in regard to the very districts which most required assistance. I gave some illustrations, and compared Glasgow with cities in England which were having a more prosperous time and had much less of a burden to bear in the way of public assistance. In this Bill we have now got—I will not say entirely full redress, but something which goes a very long way towards it. The formula does now take into account the extent of the unemployment in any particular area, and it helps the great, wide, scattered districts like the Highlands, with their sparse populations, that are not nearly so wealthy. It helps those areas whose burdens of rates are heaviest to a greater extent than before. I regard this as a great advance and as an attempt to follow the principle that we have long been urging, that the need of the depressed district is really a national burden. I do not think a great city like Glasgow can complain if an addition of £529,000 is provided by this Bill, in addition to something like £1,000,000 sterling which it was already obtaining for the support of the poor. I give my most hearty support to the Bill.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Maclean: We shall all agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) in acknowledging that some redress has been granted to those areas which have been severely hit, but the complain) which is common is the one which is supposed to come from all. Scotsmen, namely, that we are not


getting sufficient. It has been observed that the Secretary of State skated very skilfully away from any explanation of the formula. When it was brought to the House originally there was considerable discussion upon it. In all the explanations given by the advocates of the formula at that time, we were informed that it was going to work equitably between district and district. If a formula works properly, whether in manufacture or anything else, it is naturally expected that the product of that formula will be up to standard. If it does not work properly, the product will undoubtedly be below standard and wasted. I challenge the Secretary of State to point out any part of the country in which the formula, as adopted under the 1929 Act, has operated in the manner in which it should in preventing disparities. It was introduced as a formula based on scientific principles, but even now, when the methods are stated to have been adjusted, what guarantee is the Secretary of State going to give to the House that before the next five years are over he will not require to come to the House with a proposal for another change in the formula? You have already destroyed or corrected the formula that was brought in as being the most scientifically prepared for the adjustment of allowances for Poor Law purposes.
I want to bring the Secretary of State back to the facts of the operation of the formula. He has given to Glasgow a larger sum of money than it would otherwise have obtained. He thinks we should be grateful for that, and we are, but we are not grateful for having actually less than we ought to have. It was expected that the Government were going to take over all the able-bodied unemployed and relieve Glasgow and other local authorities of the expense which they have previously had to bear in maintaining them. Undoubtedly, the Government have taken over some, but what is happening, as the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Westwood) pointed out, is that a large proportion of able-bodied unemployed are still being left on the road. The Unemployment Assistance Board officials are throwing back a certain proportion of the able-bodied unemployed who are calculated never to work again. These

men have lost unemployment insurance and have gone out of health insurance because of long periods of unemployment. I am minimising the number when I say that in Glasgow there are at least 3,000 men who will be thrown back upon public assistance to be maintained by the Glasgow authorities. That expenditure ought to be borne by the Unemployment Assistance Board, but it will be placed upon the public assistance rates of Glasgow, and the citizens will have to shoulder the burden right through the years until 65.
The Secretary of State for Scotland spoke about a sum of money which was being given as additional. According to the White Paper it works out at is in the on the rates. On the other hand, the expenditure during 1936 on the destitute able-bodied unemployed required a rate of 2s. 8.7d. in the £. Consequently, when the Minister comes forward with a statement that he is giving us back 1s. out of the 2s. 8d. that was paid, he must not expect us to be exceptionally grateful. I suggest that the Secretary of State for Scotland, while not forgetting that he is a Minister of the Crown and must take a broad view of all cases, should remember at the same time that he is one of the Members for Glasgow, which is the hardest-hit city in the Kingdom, in regard to unemployment. Glasgow has paid, during the last 10 years Poor Law relief amounting to over £12,000,000, for poverty-stricken individuals, many of whom had run out of their unemployment insurance benefit and health insurance. No town in the country has had to bear heavier expenditure than Glasgow during the past 10 years. It began two years before the passing of the derating Act, which included within it the formula which we have here, and which is now amended. In considering further remittances to Glasgow, I hope that the Minister will consider carefully the special circumstances in which Glasgow has been placed, that he will make due allowance for the burden which has had to be borne and that he will not seek to place an additional burden upon us.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. McKie: I would join, as a county Member, with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) in congratulating the Minister and the Government upon bringing forward this


legislation. I am in agreement even with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair); I feel that I am on sure ground. I understand that we are not to have a Division on this Measure, and that speaks very well for the way in which the local authorities are receiving it. Naturally, we all like to get more, and when any legislation of this character comes before the House affecting any particular interest, it is seldom that some hon. Member does not say that he expected very much more than is being proposed. One is inclined to feel that nothing is being done for the interests at stake. We have had some criticism of this kind on this occasion, about what are alleged to be the meagre increases in the amounts which are to be given for local administration in Scotland.
I cannot speak with first-hand knowledge of the harrowing kind of detail which the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) has just given to the House. I am in the fortunate and happy position of representing two counties, neither of which is wealthy in the sense of having a very rich rateable value, but there is, mercifully, very little or no unemployment. I am therefore spared having to come to close quarters with the kind of problem which the hon. Gentleman has so graphically illustrated. I can assure him, at the same time, that I listened with the very greatest interest to all that he had to say on the point. If I might make a protest, it would be that the two counties which I represent are not within the category of those who are receiving the largest benefit. The net gain in the third fixed grant area, after taking account of the discontinuance of the unemployment contributions and the effect of the transfer of trunk roads will be £4,478 for the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright and £5,244 for the county of Wigtown.
On the question of the transfer of trunk roads, when the Bill on that subject was going through the House some of us endeavoured to get the existing loan liability of local authorities removed when the Government were taking over the maintenance of those roads but we were unsuccessful. I remember that I was severely criticised by my local authorities for not going into the Lobby with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. J. Brown) on that

occasion. No doubt I should have been well advised to follow his good advice. We were closely associated on that occasion. But, as so often happens at such times, the matter assumed a purely political aspect and those of us on the Government side were quite reassured as to the position of local authorities.
The amount of benefit given to those local authorities, particularly in the case of the counties, owing to the fact that a reduction is being made in the block grant, now that the local authorities have no longer to assume responsibility for these great arteries, will be largely offset in the two counties I represent by their no longer having to maintain a very long stretch of public road, for the maintenance of which it is right that the Government should assume responsibility. While we are receiving this increase we are sensible of the fact that a reduction in the grant is made in respect of roads. We hope that our plight in the future will not be as some anticipate it will be, and that the promise of the Minister of Transport made upon the occasion to which I have referred will be effectively carried out. I am pleased to support the Second Reading.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. Watson: While it is true that we do not propose to divide against the Bill, I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will not take it for granted that we are blind to what is done this afternoon. The impression has been created that upon a certain date the Government were to take over responsibility for the maintenance of the able-bodied poor. That impression has been abroad ever since the last Unemployment Assistance Act was passed. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Westwood) went into the details and told the House how the new formula will work out. Those of us who have been keenly interested in the unemployment problem for some years have always suspected that when the date came for the able-bodied poor to be taken over the Government would select the individuals for whom they would become responsible and leave a certain proportion of the able-bodied unemployed upon the shoulders of the local authority. I want to know whether in the larger burghs and county areas the local authorities are to be left with a con-


siderable number of unemployed to maintain. Up to now the public have had the impression, or have been given it, that the Government were to become responsible for the maintenance of all the able-bodied unemployed.
I am very pleased that the point has been put so clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs. He drew attention to another aspect of the matter. Since the Local Government Act of 1929 was passed an endeavour has been made to equalise the burden of the ratepayers of the country, and ever since that time local rates have been rising. This House has been placing additional burdens on the local authorities, and has given them additional duties, which have increased local expenditure, and, while it is true that under the Local Government Act, 1929, and under the Measure which the Secretary of State for Scotland has introduced this afternoon, an endeavour is being made to spread the burden more equally over the whole of the ratepayers of Scotland, the fact still remains that local expenditure has been increasing in recent years, and we should have liked to see brought before the House a much more generous Measure to meet the increased burden that has been thrown upon local authorities.
We were assured that the Measure of 1929 was going to do certain things in connection with our local government system—that it was going to stop overlapping, and that it was going to reduce expenditure so far as administration was concerned. We may have achieved a certain measure of simplification, and we may have been able to stop some of the overlapping that existed before 1929, but I question very much whether our local administration is costing less now than it did before 1929. So far as I am aware, no figures are available showing the cost of local administration now, under the Act of 1929, as compared with the conditions before 1929, but I should be surprised to find that our local administration expenditure is less to-day than it was before the Act was passed. We are not dividing against the Measure; we welcome what has been said this afternoon by the Secretary of State; but he must not take it for granted that we are entirely satisfied with what has been done. We want more relief for our over-burdened ratepayers, because, in every area where there

has been heavy unemployment for a considerable time, the ratepayers may make up their minds that they will have to make themselves responsible for the maintenance of their able-bodied unemployed for a very considerable time to come.

5.33 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): I think we are entitled to congratulate ourselves on the expedition with which we have disposed of this Bill. We shall agree that the importance of the Measure to Scotland must not be judged by the amount of time we have taken over it; and I think we might also add, without any affectation or arrogance, that the value and usefulness of the speeches which have been made is not to be judged by the length of time they have taken up. As we have still four more Bills to deal with, I must endeavour to be equally brief, and will confine myself to trying to answer as well as I can the main points which have been raised and the main questions which have been asked.
The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) said that the Secretary of State had skipped round the formula, and did not describe how it was calculated; and that observation was also made by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean). I know these hon. Members will agree that, in order to understand the formula, it is necessary to have some assistance, but it is not quite so complicated as one would imagine on first catching sight of the numerous mathematical symbols which it contains. The House will find it in Appendix III of the White Paper. If one were to read out the factors one by one, it would sound, perhaps, a little out of place in a Debate in the House of Commons, but the substance of it is this: There are four factors which govern the weighting of the population figures for the purpose of calculating grants. These are the amount of the rateable value, the number of children under five, the amount of unemployment, and the sparsity of population. The hon. Member for Govan and the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) also said, with some plausibility, that this formula was radically unsound because it had had to be altered so much, and the hon. Member for Govan said that we had had to scrap the formula. I do not think that


that is quite doing justice to the formula. It has not been scrapped, but revised, and there was, of course, provision in the original Act—

Mr. Maclean: May I draw the attention of the Under-Secretary to the heading of the fourth column on page 16? It is not, "Suggested Revised Formula"; it is "Suggested New Formula." That must mean that there was an old formula.

Mr. Wedderburn: Let us say that the principles ort which the formula was based have been revised. That was provided for in the original Act, and is provided for in this Bill for the future. The first two factors—rateable value and children—have not been changed at all. The alterations we have made are in respect of the last two—unemployment and sparsity.

Mr. Hardie: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us what is the relation between the last two factors (f) and (g) to (a) on page 16?

Mr. Wedderburn: I do not see where that comes in. The last one that I have on page 16 is W.

Mr. Hardie: That is the wrong one.

Mr. Wedderburn: With changing circumstances, such as occur in an industrial area, you cannot have a rigid formula which will apply for all time; there must be provision for its being revised from time to time.
The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk gave us some very interesting figures about the numbers of men who were taken over by the Unemployment Assistance Board on the second appointed day, and the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) tells us that there was an impression that the State was going to take over the responsibility for all the able-bodied unemployed in the country. I think that perhaps I ought again to make quite plain what the position has always been in regard to that matter. It has never been said that the State would take over the whole of the able-bodied unemployed. The position has always been that the State, on the second appointed day, would take over all the able-bodied unemployed who came within the National Health Insurance scheme.

That, of course, is much wider than the Unemployment Insurance Scheme, because it covers practically the whole working population, but there are a certain number of persons who do not even come under the National Health Insurance scheme, and who in any case would always have been left to be dealt with by the local authorities, and not by the Unemployment Assistance Board.

Mr. Maclean: While it is true that a large number may fall out of National Health Insurance, the fact remains that, so long as they are under 65 and have previously been paying into the Unemployment Insurance Fund, they can register at the exchange as able and willing to work. Therefore, they are able-bodied unemployed, and are rated as such on the public assistance roll when they return to it.

Mr. Wedderburn: Yes; I am merely stating the scope of those classes of the population who were to be taken over by the Unemployment Assistance Board. There has never been any doubt as to the qualifications, and it is not a matter, as the hon. Member for Dunfermline suggested, of picking and choosing on the part of the Board; they have to take over all the able-bodied unemployed who, as provided by the Act of 1934, come within the scope of the National Health Insurance scheme.

Mr. Westwood: The point I was making was that we were paid on an expenditure which we carried only provisionally until the second appointed day. We were paid 40 per cent. by the State, and the ratepayers had to provide 6o per cent.; and it is those cases in respect of which we were receiving this 40 per cent. payment that the Board have refused to take over. The Unemployment Assistance Board are exercising to the full their powers under Section 36 of the Act of 1934, which gives them power to determine the individuals who are available for work. If a man happens to be 60 years of age, they put him down as not likely to be normally employed, and, although he is still fully able-bodied, the cost becomes a charge on the ratepayers instead of a charge under the new formula.

Mr. Wedderburn: On any disputed point of that kind the local authority has the right of appeal—

Mr. Westwood: Not to this House or to you.

Mr. Wedderburn: The hon. Gentleman was not quite sure what would be the result of some of the appeals which were going to be made. The 40 per cent. contributed by the State to the expenses of the local authorities in respect of able-bodied unemployed was on the basis that not all of the able-bodied unemployed would come on to the Board, because it was always calculated that a certain number would be altogether outside the scope of the National Health Insurance scheme. The only point at issue is whether certain persons ought to be regarded as coming within that scope or not. I hoped to get fuller and more detailed information before speaking in reply to the figures which the hon. Gentleman quoted, but I will give him all the information we have been able to acquire in the short time available. It was anticipated by the Ministry of Labour that about 100 persons in Kirkcaldy would be taken over by the Board. They did not know the number definitely, but in all cases the local authority has the right of appeal. The figures given by the hon. Gentleman, which, of course, I accept, are that the Board has taken over 118 out of 216, leaving 98, that is to say, the very low fraction of 55 per cent. I cannot check these figures in Kirkcaldy, or say what, if any, is the special explanation of them, but I can say definitely that, if only 55 per cent. have been taken over in Kirkcaldy, it is very much less than the proportion which is being taken over in Scotland as a whole. Kirkcaldy comes in the Dundee district, and in the Dundee district as a whole the number of cases ruled out under the Act does not exceed 25 per cent., 75 per cent. being taken over by the Board.
The hon. Gentleman concluded his speech by reciting the very robust and sturdy grace which well represents what ought to be the attitude of all Scotsmen towards Measures of this kind, "For what we are about to receive make us thankful and enable us to go on fighting for what we are entitled to get." But perhaps the attitude of himself and his friends is better expressed by the grace uttered by the small girl, whose mother had refused to allow her a second helping of pudding, "Thank God for a fairly good dinner."
The right hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) was exceedingly generous in his disposal of time. Having promised to concede five minutes to the hon. Member for Stirling, he only spoke for seven minutes, which left a balance of three minutes for the general benefit of the House. I am very grateful for his support of the Bill. The only point that he made which would seem to require an answer was this. He said that under the existing law which required a certain grant calculated as a proportion of local authorities' expenditure to be paid by the Treasury, and this grant then divided up among them according to the formula, there would have been a very substantial sum available. I think for the sake of clarity I ought to remind the House what that sum would have been. Under the existing law, the amount available for Scotland would have been £6,700,00o, less the Section 45 contributions under the Unemployment Act, which would have brought it down to £5,900,000. The gain to local authorities would have been about £500,000 offset by these contributions. By comparison nearly £1,500,000 is gained under the Bill. The position would be more clear if we compare it with what has happened in England. They were entitled to a statutory increase of something like £4,750,000. Deducting from that the £2,000,000 which had to be paid by local authorities under Section 45, that brought the increase down to £2,750,000. In Scotland the increase of £,500,000 which was due would have been less than the amount payable by local authorities under Section 45. That would have brought down the total payment to £5,900,000, still leaving a net gain to local authorities of £500,000. In fact, while the total gain to which we were statutorily entitled was £500,000, we have another £868,000 which represents new money from the Exchequer.
The right hon. Baronet went on to point out that since the five areas which received the largest amount of relief under this Bill were Highland areas, the Highland areas ought to be treated as Special Areas. I can assure the right hon. Baronet that we are not unmindful of the statement of the Commissioner in his first report, that the only reason why the Highlands could not be included in the Special Areas was that their geographical character made them unsuitable to the particular machinery


which we were proposing to apply to these Areas, and we fully recognise that they ought to be accorded special treatment. In regard to the right hon. Baronet's final suggestion, about taxing land values, I am not quite sure whether the taxation of land values in Caithness would produce such a fruitful source of relief as he desires.
While many Members may feel that some different method of distributing these grants might be preferable to that which is proposed in the Bill, I do not think that it will be suggested that the circumstances of Scotland as a whole have not been properly considered. For some years we have had in Scotland a small section of opinion which has been sedulously propagating statements, very often based rather on ignorance than on deliberate misrepresentation, to the effect that the financial policy of the Imperial Parliament is unduly favourable to England. I do not think that that view will be shared by anyone who has any experience of the House of Commons, and the public in Scotland will, no doubt, observe, not only that the relief of nearly £1,500,000 made available under the Bill for Scottish local authorities is nearly a third of the English total, but also that it contains new subventions from the Exchequer which have no counterpart at all in the corresponding English measure, amounting to the greater part of £1,000,000, for the benefit of Scotland alone.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. James Stuart.]

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend Part III of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, and to repeal section forty-five of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under the said Act of 1929 (hereinafter referred to as" the principal Act") which may occur by reason—


(a) of any provision determining that the amount of the General Exchequer Contribution in respect of each year in the third fixed grant period shall be the sum of six million eight hundred and twenty-seven thousand pounds;
(b) of any amendment of the rules for determining weighted population;
(c) of the calculation of Additional Exchequer Grants to counties and large burghs upon the basis of the weighted population for the first fixed grant period being determined in accordance with such amended rules as aforesaid, and the weighted population for the fixed grant period in respect of which the grants fall to be calculated being increased by a figure equal to two and one-half per cent. of the weighted population for the first fixed grant period;
(d) of any order made by the Secretary of State for Scotland with the consent of the Treasury directing, in the case of any separately rated area in a county, the council of which satisfies the Secretary of State that special hardship or difficulty would he occasioned by the reduction required by paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of section sixty of the principal Act to be made in the amounts to be credited to any such area, that the reduction shall be remitted to the extent of one-half."—[Mr. Elliot.]

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC RECORDS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].

Order for the Second Reading read.

5.54 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The attitude of the great bulk of the people of Scotland towards the preservation and custody of national records has been until recently one of almost complete indifference, but in recent years, particularly since the War, thanks to the efforts which have been made, in part by scholars, in part by various learned societies, some of which have come into being quite recently, and in part by certain public bodies, notably the Convention of Royal Burghs, the public conscience has been awakened to the magnitude of the problem that has been created by the neglect of centuries. This has led to a many-sided attack being made upon this problem from a number of different angles. It is just 10 years since a committee under Lord Wark attacked the problem of the Sheriff Courts. Subsequently to the report of that committee steps were taken with legislative sanc-


tion, first in 1927 and then in 1928, for a reform of the administrative side of the Sheriff Court Clerk service and the Register House service, and the ground was thus cleared for the formulation and execution of what I might describe as a general record policy, and it is as an instalment of that general record policy that I would ask the House to regard this Bill.
After the 1928 Reorganisation of Offices Act, under which a Keeper of the Register and Records was established and provision was made for comprehensively dealing with the Register House and its staff, the whole situation was reviewed and reports were made. Following upon that, in 1933, considerable additions were made to the staff in the Register House, of persons expert in the work of archives, and in February last further additions were made to the staff on that side of the work and further additions to the staff engaged in clerical duties and in the very important work of cleaning and arranging the masses of records which have so far not been classified or indexed in any way. The net result is that, by means of those additions to the staff, very considerable progress has already been made in overtaking the substantial arrears, and I am confident that the Government will continue to display, in their attitude towards the completion of this task, the same sympathy that they have shown during the last few years in the administrative steps that I have described.
But there are many difficulties to be met—difficulties of accommodation and difficulties of staff. It is literally impossible to do work of this kind in a hurry. A great deal of time is necessary for the training of experts who have to do the work. Anything in the nature of mass production methods in the handling of this problem is entirely out of the question. From that brief explanation I hope that I have done something to provide the House with the background and setting against which I shall now ask them to look at the terms of the Bill.
In Part I we are concerned with court records. I shall not need to say very much about that. Clause r does really nothing new. It deals with the High Court and Court of Session records, and its effect is simply to regularise and simplify the existing practice, which is

regulated by a very large number of antiquated statutory provisions. Clause 2 deals with Sheriff Court records and in substance gives effect to one of the recommendations of Lord Wark's Committee in favour of centralisation of all Sheriff Court records in Edinburgh, in so far as they are records which are more than 25 years old. These powers will require to be exercised gradually and systematically. I do not think it would be wise in any way to collect a mass of local records and, as it were, to dump them until Edinburgh is ready to receive them and to deal with them and make them ready and available for consultations by scholars and students. The process will be gradually and systematically put into operation, beginning with the Sheriff Court records, which are most in need of better housing than they enjoy at the present time. This Clause is in substance the statutory recognition of the principle of the centralisation of Sheriff Court records.
I now pass to Part II of the Bill which deals with State, Departmental and local authority records. In Clause 3 we have an almost romantic touch, because direction is given for the transfer from the Public Record Office in London to the Keeper of Registers and Records in Edinburgh of certain celebrated documents set out in the First Schedule to the Bill. The key to the First Schedule is to be found in the eighth item in the Schedule, which is an inventory dated 20th September, 1282, an inventory which was prepared on the instructions of Alexander III and which records all documents of the nature of public records which were then in Edinburgh Castle. There were no fewer than 170 of them described in that inventory, dating, I think, from the time of William the Lion. Of those 170 documents only seven are known to exist at the present time. Those seven, the pitiful remnants of the national records of Scotland are the documents in the Schedule numbered 1 to 7.
With regard to these documents it is not without interest to note that some of them were removed from Scotland in 1291, when Edward I of England was invited to adjudicate upon the rival claims to the Scottish Crown. Document No. 9 in the Schedule is contained in the inventory which was made in 1291, when the documents were removed by Edward I. These were taken away from Scotland in 1292 to be handed to Balliol,


who had succeeded in his claim to the Scottish Crown. There is evidence that the whole or the great bulk of the documents were in London in the year 1323, but since then, with the exception of the seven documents I have referred to, the Inventory itself, and the Letters Patent No. 9 described in the Inventory of 1291, all trace has been lost. It is interesting also to remember that by the Treaty of Northampton of 1327, which is frequently referred to during elections and by-elections in Scotland, provision was made for the restoration by England to Scotland of all documents
touching the freedom of Scotland,
and it is in a sense in fulfilment of that Treaty that some at least of the documents scheduled in this Bill are now being sent back to the custody which they should never have left.
I am sure that it will be a source of satisfaction to hon. Members on both sides of the Border that an incident which had its origin nearly 650 years ago is now being brought to a satisfactory conclusion, although I imagine that my fellow Members from Scotland will still want to know what has happened to the other 163 records. Copies of the scheduled documents, with translations, have been prepared in a convenient form and will be made available in the Library and elsewhere for any hon. Members who care to engage in the very interesting task of perusing these very remarkable records of 600 years ago.

Mr. Johnston: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House some information as to why No. 2 and No. 7 in the Schedule should be included in the list of Scottish documents?

The Lord Advocate: There are several reasons for that. I think probably the best reason is that these documents were in Edinburgh Castle in 1282 and were inventoried by instructions of Alexander III as Scottish national records. Therefore, whatever they may be in themselves, they were ours in 1282, and I should say that legally the onus is on England to show that they should not be sent back to Scotland. As regards the intrinsic nature of the documents, the right hon. Gentleman will find when he peruses the copy which I shall make available, that No. 2 is quite definitely a

Scottish document. It is addressed to the Scottish Kings and was apparently sent to them. As regards No. 7, the position is that the Manor of Aldenstone in Cumberland was for many centuries part of the private patrimony of the Scottish Kings, but in 1281, for reasons associated with the imminent quarrel between England and Scotland, King Edward I apparently granted the Manor of Alden-stone to somebody else, and this document is, as it were, an intimation that the English King sent to the Scottish King that he had given the land to somebody else. I might add a third and last reason, and that is that the English records authorities agree that these scheduled documents ought to be sent back to Scotland, for the reasons which I have endeavoured to describe.
With regard to the other provisions of the Bill, might I draw attention to Clause 4, which deals with the transfer of records in the hands of Government Departments, boards of trustees, or other bodies of persons? This differs from Clause 3 in being a permissive and not an imperative Clause. The Bill if it becomes law merely empowers the transfer of documents under Clause 4. The material which would be covered by Clause 4 is literally enormous, far in excess of the capacity of Register House to absorb it, if it wanted to. In addition, a great deal of these documents are genuinely required for administrative purposes or legitimate purposes of some other kind, in the hands of the present custodians. As regards a great many others it has been found physically impossible to sever what may be described as Scottish records from British or English records without impairing and rendering them useless for any purpose as complete records. There is, of course, such a thing as documents being bound up together, and you might easily destroy them if you separated them. Therefore, all that has been found possible at this stage to do, and I think it is a useful stage, is to make provision in this Clause for arrangements being made in suitable cases for the transfer to Scotland of Scottish records which can be so transferred without prejudice or injury to a collection which is complete in itself, and without prejudice to the scholars and others who may desire and may require to consult the collection as a single whole.
As regards the remaining part of the Clause I would point out the proviso:
that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any burgh register of sasines or to any book or public record relating thereto.
The explanation is that there was a Statute passed in 1926, the precursor of this Bill, which deals with burgh records, and it is not desirable to have a duplicate provision dealing with that subject. As regards the rest of the Bill I think I can pass over the remaining Clauses with the simple statement that they are machinery Clauses more suitable for examination in detail upstairs than at this stage of the Bill. I should like, however, to refer to Clause which falls into a wholly different category, because it provides for the discharge of the duties of extractor of the Court of Session. The position is that there has been attached to the Court of Session an officer called the Principal Extractor and an Assistant Extractor, who perform certain functions associated with the making available to litigants of the decrees of the Court. Since the reconstruction of the Court of Session and its associated offices under the Administration of justice Act there has been a very extensive redistribution of duties, and at the present time there is a vacancy in the office of Principal Extractor, and I think also in the office of Assistant Extractor. It is obvious, certainly to myself, that the duties hitherto associated with that Department could under the reconstituted procedure of the Court be adequately performed by the normal staff associated with the Court. No purpose will be served by maintaining these old posts in existence. A slight economy will be effected and no loss of efficiency is involved.
I have no doubt that when the Bill receives the narrow consideration which Scottish Bills almost always get there will be many points of omission and commission upon which hon. Members will desire to offer their contribution, but having exhausted the limit of time allotted to me I will content myself with expressing the confident belief that the Bill will be greatly welcomed by all, who whether for sentimental reasons or as students of the political and economic history of Scotland, desire, to see steps taken to make our ancient records more readily accessible and to secure that they are preserved in a manner more fitting to their great interest and historic value.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. T. Johnston: This is the first occasion since Scottish Members have imposed voluntarily a restriction of time on their speeches that I have regretted there should be any such restriction. We do not intend to oppose the Bill; indeed, we welcome it, but we shall most certainly do our best in Committee to widen its scope and improve it. I have come to a stage when on Scottish affairs I am thankful for small mercies. I have taken a keen personal interest in this question for many years, and I represent perhaps the most historic constituency in Scotland. Cambus-Kenneth Abbey, Bannockburn, and Ben Lomond and the bonnie banks and just on the borders of the city from which many of our ancient documents were stolen by the English in General Monk's time. Unfortunately it is quite true, as the Lord Advocate has said, that the great bulk of our fellow-citizens take no interest whatever in the matters dealt with by the Bill. They simply do not understand that yesterday is the parent of to-day and the grandparent of to-morrow, and that if we cannot understand the past we are utterly incompetent to discuss the present or to guide the future. It is unfortunately true that in historic research we in Scotland lag far behind our brothers south of the Border.
The first part of the Measure deals with judicial records of the Court of Session and the High Court. The Keeper of Records in Edinburgh has already got these records up to the year 1400, but we have no index whatever of anything from 1500 to 1800. For 30o years the records of the High Court in Scotland have not been indexed, and it is useless to send a huge mass of records into Edinburgh until they can deal with them and until they can get the necessary cash from the Treasury, commensurate with what the English get now. Until they get the cash and have adequate facilities it is no use sending further records for them to handle. The Lord Advocate is pleased that after so many centuries he is able to implement the Treaty of Northampton. But there is rather a doubt about that. We might ask for another part of the Treaty of Northampton to be implemented, and ask that the Stone of Destiny should be returned to Scotland. But for my part England can have the Stone of Destiny if she will


send back the administrative records subsequent to the Union in 1707 of Scotland to the place where they should belong, the capital city of Scotland.
I doubt whether all the nine records referred to by the Lord Advocate are Scottish documents at all, but these nine documents are only a handful of the ancient and purely Scottish documents which still exist in England. I have a long list of them here, and the Lord-Advocate will probably hear something about these documents in the Committee stage. In the Public Records Office in London there is one Scottish document which goes back to 1065, and there are other documents relating to William Wallace and many other prominent Scotsmen which should certainly be returned as of more interest to Scotland than the ancient documents referred to in the Treaty of Northampton. The oldest Scottish document is lying at Durham. It is not in the control of the Keeper of Records. It goes back to 1093, and there are a number of old Scottish documents scattered up and down England. Surely, at any rate, we should get such papers as the Muster Roll of the Scottish Army in 1646. We have lost the records of many of our tribal relationships because they are lying buried in English archives.
In regard to Clause 2 the Lord Advocate was pleased that the recommendations of Lord Wark's Committee which reported in 1926, were being implemented. That is 10 years ago, and it is significant of the way in which vital Scottish interests are treated in this House. Ten years ago many Sheriff Court records were mouldering into decay, being eaten by rats, were being destroyed week by Week; but 10 years has to elapse after that report before time can be found in this House to bring in a Measure to implement its recommendations. I am glad to say that there are many sheriff clerks who take a personal interest in this matter and that many ancient records are being carefully preserved, but these records must be under the control of a responsible body.
The Lord Advocate dealt with Part II of the Bill with what I thought was unnecessary celerity. Hon. Members will observe that there is no mention whatever of ecclesiastical records. Why? The history of our country is largely bound up with the history of the kirk.

Although the General Assembly has done something in recent years to collect and preserve these records, it is nevertheless true that there is a vast amount of the vital history of our country which at the present moment is in nobody's control, with nobody responsible for collecting it. I have a friend who picked up in Glasgow, on an old trader's barrow, for is. 6d. the Kirk Sessions Record of the Parish of Stoneykirk—priceless material which money cannot buy. [An HON. MEMBER: "He bought it for is. 6d."] I mean that you cannot set any value upon it. This particular Kirk Session Record will be handed over to the Keeper of Records, or the responsible authority whenever direction is given. Anyone who is acquainted with what Dr. Burns in his Benefice Lectures has to say on the ecclesiastical records of Scotland will be aware of the urgent necessity there is to get our old ecclesiastical records, our Presbytery records and our Synod records and our Kirk Session under public control.
I spent a long time going through Presbytery records in Glasgow, but nobody knows where it is possible to get the Synod records. I think they are lying in Ayrshire somewhere, but there is nobody with any authority or sufficient interest in the matter to see that they are collected and preserved. These are matters which must be amended in the Committee stage. I would remind the Lord Advocate that it is from the ecclesiastical records that we get much of our marriage and family history. If I had time, I could quote many instances of the delightful humour which appears in some of these old ecclesiastical records. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. J. Brown) of one that is to be found in the register of Ochiltree for 1704, where the parish minister recorded a baptism, for somebody with whom he did not get on very well, in the following words:
This child is George Something, lawful son to What ye call him, in the Mains of Barskemming.
There is also a very humorous record of a marriage at Strontian in Argyll. After the parties' names were given, the parish minister said:
There has been something very odd about the above parties. They first contracted and then split, then agreed, and with much


singularity married. Were not married passing five days when the weaker vessel set sail and steered her course for her mammy.
It would be a great pity if the forcible old Scots language should be lost to us in so far as it is preserved in these records. I hope the Lord Advocate will also make an effort to get the quarter session records of the justices of the peace courts. At the present time they are not under the control of anybody. In them we get our history of licensing, a large part of our poor law history and certainly a large part of the history of our poor law children, and the history of how they were treated after the Napoleonic wars. We ought to get the records of our Commissioners of Supply, which were the predecessors of the county councils.

The Lord Advocate: They are covered by the Bill as it is now.

Mr. Johnston: Is the Lord Advocate sure? I have heard doubts expressed. If he is satisfied, I am very glad. All know is that the county councils, from whom we can take over the records, are not necessarily the bodies which are now in control of the records of the Commissioners of Supply. They ought to be, but they are not. I know of one county in which the county council is not in control of records of its predecessors. As the Bill now stands, it is lawful to take over the records only when they are at present in the custody of an existing local authority. There are also the Heritors' Minutes. It is true that we have power under the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowment) Act, 1925, to get these Heritors' Minutes—I speak subject to correction from the Lord Advocate, with his great legal knowledge—when their rights are extinguished. We can never get the history of education in Scotland until we get these Minutes. It was the Heritors who appointed the parochial schoolmasters and fixed their wages and the curricula. I have already referred to the Scottish administrative documents subsequent to 1707.
I hope the Lord Advocate will also do something in the Bill before it passes from his control to ensure that the births, deaths and marriage registers prior to 1855 shall be transferred from the place where they now are to the Records Office. We ought not to be called upon to pay a fee of £1 for research. It is iniquitous

that we should have to pay that sum. If the Lord Advocate will make the contrast, he will find that last year the English Records Office took only £575 in fees, whereas in Edinburgh they took £2,000. That ought to be stopped. I do not know where the Commissariat Registers are, but I hope they will be included in the Bill. With regard to wages, the Lord Advocate must stop the scandal of our paying our scholars in the Records Office in Edinburgh from £300 to £400, according to the grade, less than is being paid for similar work in the Records Office in London. We ought not to permit further transfers of documents to be left to a gentleman known as the Master of the Rolls. What an impertinence it is at this time that an English lawyer should determine what records we are to get.
I have tabled an Amendment to the Bill, which I hope will be accepted, whereby a committee composed of three scholars appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland and three by the Home Secretary, representing England, would determine what documents we are to get. We ought not to leave the determination to an English lawyer: that is a pathetic state of affairs. I appeal to the Lord Advocate to use this golden opportunity which he has to get all the learned societies in Scotland—the Spalding Club, the Scottish Text Society, the History Society, the E.I.S., the Procurators of the Faculties, the Pilgrim Trust with its money, and so on—to do the work of indexing and calendaring the documents already at Edinburgh. We shall never get this done by leaving it to half a dozen civil servants. There is a large number of voluntary workers waiting to come forward if only their help is accepted. The Lord Advocate has a great opportunity, the sort of opportunity that knocks at our door only once in a generation. I trust that before this Measure leaves the Committee upstairs, it will be radically amended and widened. I hope the Lord Advocate will do something here for his country—Burns yearned to make a song at least—I hope the Lord Advocate will do something vital to enable us to get the real history of Scotland written as it has not been written in the past and cannot be written until we get the documents.

6.39 p.m.

Mr. Erskine Hill: The right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate is to be


congratulated on bringing forward a Bill which will at long last enable Scotland to have her public records properly treated. Scotland has in this matter a story of almost unrivalled disaster. There was not only the episode to which my right hon. Friend referred of the seizure of those documents by King Edward I when settling the claim between Baliol and other applicants for the Scottish Throne, but later on Cromwell took all the documents he could lay hands on in Edinburgh and took them to England. In the year 1660, when they were being returned, disaster overtook the boat in which they were being brought back to Scotland, and those important documents were lost for ever. Later on there was a case which called for the production of a great many documents, which were brought from the Records Office. They were taken to a Committee room of this House and were lost in the fire which destroyed the House of Commons in 1834. I think that makes clear the necessity for the preservation of all the documents that are still left.
I venture to make a criticism of the Bill in that I do not think in its present form it lays sufficient stress upon the preservation of documents. If hon. Members will look at Clause 10 they will see that it is clear that regulations may be made regarding the disposal by destruction or otherwise of records, but there is nothing in the Bill to prevent documents being destroyed by neglect or by improper treatment. Although it may well be that the Keeper will take proper steps, there is nothing in the Bill insisting on it. If hon. Members will also look at Clause 6, they will see that
The Keeper shall take such steps as may seem to him necessary for the cleaning, preserving, repairing and arranging of any records ….
I think we ought to consider carefully in Committee whether the Bill would not be very much strengthened by insisting on regulations not only as regards destruction of documents, but as regards their preservation. In the preservation of records in France and other countries in Europe, decentralisation is generally the rule with a view to preventing the risk of fire destroying them. In England, on the other hand, the system of centralising documents has been successfully worked.
Naturally, the documents are very much more useful for purposes of reference

and use by scholars for historical and other research if they are so centralised. I think the excuse for the system of centralisation which is being followed by the Bill is that the documents are made available. I would like the Lord Advocate to consider whether it might not be well to put in the Bill something regarding the making available of documents in Scotland. There is a provision dealing with the ordinary court records being made available, but I am referring to the State documents, many of which are being found from time to time as the work of research goes on. I think we are all agreed that this Bill should receive a Second Reading. The Government are to be congratulated on the step they have taken to protect the historical records of Scotland for the use of her scholars and those people who may find among the numbers of documents which have not yet been studied something which may be of real interest as regards the history of Scotland.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: We in this part of the House welcome the introduction of the Bill. It is obvious from what has been said that it fulfils a considerable public need in Scotland and as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) has pointed out, everyone will be gratified at the fact that the documents impounded by Edward I are to be returned and that the Treaty of Northampton is to be implemented after a lapse of 610 years. Upon this occasion, at any rate, the Government are showing a scrupulous regard for the sanctity of treaty obligations. I have not the detailed knowledge which would enable me to survey, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling did, the various kinds of records which are to be preserved, but two points have occurred to me which I would put to the Lord Advocate. Clause 4, Sub-section (2), provides that it shall be lawful for the town council of any burgh in Scotland or any other local authority in Scotland, with the consent of the Keeper, to transmit any of their records to the Keeper for custody. There is no obligation on them to transmit their records, but they may do so if they think fit and if they obtain the consent of the Keeper. Sub-section (3) then says that if a document is wanted by a local authority or by


the Department concerned, the Keeper shall retransmit it, but it adds:
Any record so retransmitted, shall be returned to the Keeper as soon as may be after it has ceased to be required for the purposes for which it was retransmitted.
I think we ought to have an explanation of this provision. It would appear that while it is within the discretion of the local authority to decide whether or not they will hand over documents to the custody of the Keeper, once they have handed over those documents, it is impossible for them to get the documents back, except for some special and temporary purposes.

Mr. Johnston: What other purposes does the hon. Member suggest?

Mr. Foot: Suppose a local authority came to the conclusion—I am not saying that there would be many such cases—that it wanted to reverse its decision to hand over certain documents and decided to rather retain documents say, which were of interest in relation to local history, it could only have the documents back for some special purpose under this provision. I am not saying that that is exactly a point of criticism, but I think it is one on which we might have some explanation.
The other point which I wish to mention arises on Clause 10 and has already been referred to by the hon. and learned Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine Hill). This Clause deals with the disposal of documents which are not to be preserved by the Keeper and in particular with the disposal of documents by destruction or otherwise. I have been comparing this provision with similar provisions in the English law and it is interesting to note that while there is a similar provision in Section 1 of the Public Records Act, 1877, certain safeguards are inserted in that Act. In the English legislation where rules are made regarding the destruction and disposal of records, they must be laid for a period of time before this House. Secondly, where authorities decide that documents are to be destroyed, a schedule of the documents must be prepared and laid before this House for a certain period. Those safeguards do not appear in this Bill.
I think we all agree that the greatest care should be exercised in regard to the

destruction of ancient documents and that some sort of control should be vested in the House of Commons in this respect. There is a third safeguard in the English legislation in a provision that no record earlier than a specified date shall be disposed of or destroyed. In the Act of 1877 the date was fixed at 1757, but by a subsequent Act the date was fixed at 1660 and as regards England no documents earlier than that date can be destroyed. It may not be essential, but I suggest that a similar safeguard for very ancient documents might be included in the Bill. No doubt we shall be able to raise these points in Committee, but I submit them to the Lord Advocate's attention, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling that, while there are various respects in which the Bill is susceptible to improvement, everybody will welcome its introduction.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. G. A. Morrison: I am sure that all Scottish Members, and indeed, all Scotsmen, will welcome a Measure which proposes to do something for the better preservation of our national records and also for the provision of better facilities for their inspection. In saying so, I have in mind chiefly the interests of historical students, whether university men or not, and whether working as individuals or as members of learned societies. The present state of matters has been described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) with a wealth of detail, and I shall be content to do no more than repeat the studiously moderate words spoken from the Government Bench in another place that:
the present arrangements in Scotland for the care and custody of public records are susceptible of improvement.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate mentioned the sad fact that interest in Scotland in these matters is rather languishing. I suggest that part of the cause of that may be found in the lack of facilities for examination of records. Anyone who undertakes historical research is apt to find that historical research is its own reward. He has little chance of producing a bestseller, but one thing he is certain to do, and that is to spend a good deal of time and money and labour. I have not done much of this work, but I remember a


friend of mine who worked for a number of years on the papers of the Seafield family. When he published a part of the results of his researches, he told me that most of the interest in what he had done was shown in America and that offers of assistance for the further prosecution of the work were confined to America. Before the war I met in Germany a young university lecturer, I think of Leland-Stanford University, California, who was at that time enjoying his Sabbatical year—a method of preserving freshness of mind in the teaching profession, which I cordially commend to the Scottish Office, not without some hope of living to see it adopted. This young man was interested in historical research and he got permission from the British Museum authorities to study some documents there which had not hitherto been examined. He worked for more than a year on this task. Two years later I met him on the steps of the British Museum and he told me that when he sent home the results of his first year's work, he was told that he was doing as valuable work here as he could do at the university, and that he was to continue it for a further period.
Clause 6 contains provision for the cleaning, preserving, repairing and arranging of records and for the making of calendars, indexes and catalogues. Reference has already been made to the question of staffs. The University Historical Schools have been training young men and women for this work and part of the present disadvantage in this connection is that there is so little scope for the employment of those people. I happen to know some who are well qualified to undertake this work, and I hope this Measure will give them their opportunity. In case temporary assistance should be required at the beginning of a big task like this, I suggest that the Scottish Office ought not to forget the claims of graduates who are unemployed. I have many letters, though fortunately not so many as I had two or three years ago, from graduates who have been unable to find situations. The Scottish Office has already done something by providing employment in the supervision of examinations, and I think some of these graduates could also be usefully employed on a task of this character.
Another matter to which I would call attention is that many records of the

greatest historical value are known to be lying about in mansion houses all over the country. In many cases, the owners do not know what they have. They only know that a bundle of old records are there, and now and again some owner of the house invites a trained person to go through them and to see what he can find. It is astonishing what is found. Only last summer there were two articles in the "Times" by Professor Abbott recording the discovery of a most valuable historical document in a country house in Angus. If it became known that the Record Office had a qualified staff available for work of this kind, I am sure many invitations to examine documents in such houses would be forthcoming. There is another respect in which we have not, I think, done in Scotland what has been very well done in England. Here one can get in the British Museum excellent facsimiles of valuable documents and I suggest that for university classes and senior classes in secondary schools some of these documents could, by this method, be made available to a greater extent than at present.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. J. Brown: As Scotsmen, I am sure we must all be glad that this Bill has been introduced, but we trust that its scope will be much enlarged. I am much interested in the records of our native land, even in those extending back to such remote periods as those mentioned by the historian Buchanan. I am interested in all the records pertaining to our country, but I should like very well to get some more accurate knowledge than we have regarding the ecclesiastical records from the time when Knox introduced the reformation into our country. He was a reformer, and if Knox had got his way the education which my right hon. Friend was talking about would have been much stronger and more widespread, if he had not had our rapacious barons to deal with at that time. The hon. Member knows that I am speaking the truth. I hope that he is not in possession of any of these ill-gotten gains. If we could get this knowledge it would show the determination of the kirk that the poor would be taken care of, the ministers of the Word would be taken care of and education would have a much wider scope.
Among these records we might get some record of the marriage of the great


reformer to the house of Stuart. It is perfectly true that in almost all the histories of Scotland we read—and there are many of them—we are informed of the fact that there must be some record pertaining to that event, and if we can possibly get these ecclesiastical records gathered together they would not only be interesting to Scotsmen in this House but very interesting to Scotland as a Whole. My right hon. Friend claimed that he represented one of the most historical places in Scotland. I am not here to quarrel with him to-night, but if I were I would dispute the claim and prove it quite easily, because I am assured that if you leave out the history of Ayrshire up to the Union of the Crowns you leave out most of the history of Scotland.

Mr. McKie: And Galloway too.

Mr. Brown: Galloway is connected. If you want to read the true history of Scotland read the history of Ayrshire down to the Union of the Crowns. There could have been no Bannockburn had there been no Bruce born in Ayrshire.

Mr. McKie: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the campaign which ultimately ended in the glorious victory of Bannockburn was launched not in Ayrshire but in the Glen of Trool in Galloway in 1307?

Mr. Brown: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is accurate in that, but he is bound to know that some of his compatriots pursued Bruce inveterately and compelled him to take refuge. But we are talking about the records of Scotland, and I think that we are on the right lines in asking that these records should be as full as they can possibly be. I am afraid that I have been deflected, but I want to identify myself with those who are very desirous that the Scottish records should be restored to Scotland at the earliest moment, housed properly, indexed and all the rest of it, so that Scotsmen may have easy access to the records of their country, for I think that everybody agrees—Englishmen, Welshmen and Irishmen as well as Scotsmen—that it is a country well worth recording. It has always been in the van of liberty and I hope it always will be, but we want the records as far back as we can get them from the Treaty of Northampton. I am sure that there will be valuable informa-

tion for us even if we can get them only in a patchy way. This Bill will go a long way to repair the injustices done to Scotland.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Hannah: I do welcome this Bill with all my heart, if only from the fact that I happen to have had the privilege of being the nephew of Dr. Maitland Thomson, who spent his whole life working on the Scottish Records, and he told me once about the extremely poor provision for storing those records, despite the fact that a very fine building by Adam was in the eighteenth century erected in the new town of Edinburgh in order to house these records. We ought to have better provision for keeping the records once they have been restored to the place where they properly belong. I understand that rats and things like that have actually destroyed records in the very Record House itself. It was during the seventeenth century that Scotland annexed England when she was bankrupt of monarchs, and Manchuria conquered China, and in both cases the country which had annexed or conquered the other tended rather to become a province in the process. Scotland has lost something, although I think that on the whole she has gained by her union with England. There are relatively few of us who cannot say that we are quite as much at home in one country as in the other; and my ancestors saw the finest landscape in Scotland, the road that led them into England before I appeared. I do not think that there is any strong reason for sending back that stone to Scotland. After ail, it is a sad reflection to a Scot to realise that every church in which a King could be crowned in Scotland lies gaping to the sky and if the stone were taken back to Scotland where could we put it?

Mr. Hardie: At Scone, where it used to be, in the open air.

Mr. Hannah: It used to be in the Abbey of Scone and the Abbey of Scone is no longer in a fit position to receive it. After all, Scotland does not do so badly in the matter of the Coronation. If over a Scottish stone a Scottish archbishop places the Crown on a Monarch whose ancestors can be traced back further in Argyll than in England itself, Scotland has in the Coronation a fairly


good share. I do feel the need for the better care of the records generally of Scotland. In this country the episcopal records for the most part are still intact in the respective cathedral cities. Unfortunately, our friend John Knox, responsible for so much, sent a lot of Scottish bishops flying all over the Continent. That we might have forgiven, but they took their records with them in many cases. I believe that we do not know whether or not a large number of these old Scottish documents are still extant in some remote Continental monastery or library. I had the singular fortune myself in the cathedral treasury of Sens, in France, to come across two of very significant importance.
In the Scottish mansions admirable work has been done in preserving documents, and here at least I think that the Socialism of some of our hon. Friends opposite would be strained when they come to compare, as far as Scotland is concerned, the Government record in preserving records and the purely private one. Among the documents of my own place in Scotland there is a rather interesting one, dating from the middle of the eighteenth century, in which a certain piece of land is described as being situate in that part of His Majesty's Dominion of Great Britain that formerly was known as Scotland. Whether words of that kind were usual or not I do not know, but I think there is no doubt of any kind that this Bill will do a tremendous amount to make Scottish people more interested in their own past, more anxious to get together the records that have been scattered to the four winds, and I hope, from my own point of view, that it will make them even more enthusiastic about the preservation of their ancient buildings. And so with the most tremendous enthusiasm, as an act of tardy justice, but one which I hope will be the beginning of a new historical era, I welcome this splendid Bill.

Mr. Johnston: Before the hon. Member concludes would he say whether he has really any evidence to justify the assertion that rats and mice in the Record Office in Edinburgh are even now eating up what records we have?

Mr. Hannah: I did not say "even now"; at least I hope that I did not. It was commonly stated that that was the case some time ago, but I do not

think recently. Whether it is true or not the statement has often been made; it is not my own statement.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Mathers: I have no intention of following the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Hannah), although one might be tempted to argue with him the question of whether, when Socialism is established, there will be any sense of looking after things belonging to the past.

Mr. Hannah: My whole interest was the past and not the future. I merely referred to the preservation of documents of the past and not of days to come.

Mr. Mathers: I understood the hon. Member to indicate that there was something against Socialism in his plea for preserving records. I do not wish to follow that, although I sometimes wonder how one with such intense antiquarian interests should be the representative of a constituency in the Black Country.

Mr. Hannah: My point was that the documents in Scotland in private custody have been better preserved in the past, on the whole, than those in the possession of the Government.

Mr. Mathers: I will leave the matter there. There are many who consider that matters of this kind are not worth troubling about and, indeed, that those with minds that go back into the past are not of much account. We have a standing refutation of that idea in my right hon. Friend who gave us such an interesting speech in leading from this side of the House. Had it not been for his desire and his bent for going back into the past we would not have had that important contribution to our literature, "The History of the Working-classes in Scotland," for which my right hon. Friend was responsible. It struck me as rather curious that the only reference which the Lord Advocate made to the question of staff for dealing with the records was one which indicated that a slight economy would come about as a result of the changes which will be made in a short time.
When I had the honour of representing—perhaps I should hesitate to say "representing" because I was a serious minority member—the constituency which the Lord Advocate now represents, I received many complaints about the con-


ditions that prevailed in the Sasine office and the Register House in Edinburgh. It was made clear to me that those who did similar work on this side of the Border were much better paid than those in Edinburgh, and there was a clear indication that the Treasury were not so generous to the staff in the Scottish Department as they were to the staff in England. References have frequently been made to the lack of support given by the Treasury to matters affecting Scotland as compared with the support given to English departments of the same kind.
I hope that when the question of the staff who will have the responsibility of working in this office is dealt with, the Lord Advocate, the Secretary of State and those who are responsible will see that proper conditions and salaries are given to those who will be employed. Only recently I learned that from that and similar departments in Edinburgh a number of people have been discharged with totally inadequate pensions, although now that pension arrangements have been made to the staff there it is hoped that better allowances will be available. There is a great deal that requires to be safeguarded in respect of those who have the responsibility of looking after these records, and I hope that the material words which I am uttering in that regard, which are almost foreign to the object of this Bill, for it is more of a sentimental and antiquarian interest, will be heeded by those for whom they are intended.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. Guy: I congratulate the Government on introducing this Measure, which I regard as a valuable instalment in the direction of the development of our policy for dealing with Scottish records. Something has been said already about certain aspects of that policy. I am not so much concerned with the addition of large quantities of records, as has been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston). We cannot move all the records to the Register House that we would, like to see there. I would like to deal with one particular aspect of policy. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate referred to the principle of centralisation. That has been accepted in our record policy for over 100 years,

but the real justification for it has in the past been neglected. The justification is, of course, that we should have in one building all the records available for research students and historical students. Although I think that a good many of the complaints as regards the neglect and the condition of these records in the Register House have been exaggerated, we find to-day that the facilities for reference to Scottish records are anything but what they should be.
I would draw the comparison between what we have in the Scottish National Library, where the contents have been fully indexed in recent years, and the Register House. If one goes to the Scottish National Library and gives the name of a book and the author, it is known that the book is somewhere on the miles of shelving and it will be available within half an hour. If one goes to the Register House knowing that a particular Scottish Record is there, and the name and date of it is given, it may be a matter of two or three months before it can be made available. The reason is that the record is tucked away in some volume and there has not been nearly enough done in the way of indexing and cataloguing and providing a system whereby a record can be made available for examination. I hope that in future the policy of centralisation will be developed in the proper way and that there will be far greater facilities for reference by research students.
May I mention a point with regard to the Treaty of Northampton to which reference has been made? The right hon. Gentleman opposite complained that there was no provision for the transfer of any ecclesiastical records to the Register House, but I would point out that in the Schedule to the Bill we have no fewer than three Papal Bulls. I had occasion recently to refer to the text of the Treaty of Northampton, and it is a matter of interest to find that some of the points in our foreign policy recently are not so up-to-date as one would expect, because in that Treaty one finds that in its provisions for possible trouble in Ireland and in France respectively, provision is made for mutual assistance in one case and non-intervention in the other. There are a number of points of detail in the Bill about which I am interested, but they can be dealt with on the Committee stage.


I would like, however, to refer to one point because it raises a question of principle.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling referred to the possibility of some conference of representative bodies who would survey the whole question of what is to be done with the Register House and the records. My suggestion is that a permanent body should be set up. The Convention of Royal Burghs strongly backed a suggestion that there should be a Scottish record advisory council. I think that a small body composed of representative and expert persons would be very useful in assisting my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate, and also the keeper during the next five years, when there are bound to be difficult questions of policy and administration in dealing with the addition to the Register House. It may be suggested that it would be better to defer the appointment of such a council until all the records have been transferred and until the scheme has come into operation, but I believe that it would be far more valuable if it were set up under this Bill. There are many improvements that could be effected in the Register House and in the methods of dealing with our records, but we cannot expect to achieve all these results in one measure. We got a small instalment of reform in 1933 after the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) had taken the matter up when he was Secretary of State. There is bound to be a further addition to the staff, and I hope they will be properly qualified and highly trained men. We cannot expect that all these matters can be dealt with under this Bill, but I think that with certain alterations and Amendments it will constitute a valuable contribution to the improvement of our Scottish records.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: Before the Minister replies I should like to put forward a suggestion for what he might regard as a further improvement in the Bill. I refer to the tendency to loss by submergence of documents which in years to come will have a great historic and antiquarian value. There is a great tendency to under-estimate the value which contemporary documents will acquire in the eyes of posterity. We have a mundane

example in the case of postage stamps, although it seems almost frivolous to mention them in this connection; but it is the case that important documents which to us appear of little interest tend to become submerged and to pass out of our possession. It may even be that some documents which bear the signature of the present Lord Advocate or the present Secretary of State for Scotland may acquire a value and significance in the future. We know that fire, water and time take a heavy toll of old documents, and we have heard of the losses in the reign of Edward I and of how an iconoclast like Cromwell destroyed old records wholesale, but there is a form of destruction which is even more potent, the loss of documents by acquisitiveness. That aspect of the preservation of documents has been overlooked in this Bill, because every provision of it leaves it optional for those charged with notifying the existence of these documents or sending them to the proper quarters to make proper returns.
When I speak of acquisitiveness I do not mean that people tend to steal these documents, but there is tremendous confusion in the law of the ownership of public and private documents, and it ought to be cleared up, otherwise the Minister may be leaving a leak in his Bill which posterity will have cause to regret. I will give one example which I regard as of paramount importance to illustrate the point I am making. I read in the Press the other day that a document which, though hardly 25 years old, will in years to come rank as one of the first documents of historic, military and antiquarian importance in the history of our country has already fallen into private hands. I refer to the order which the late Field Marshal Earl Haig signed with his own hand instructing the British Armies in France to stand with their backs to the wall and to fight to the death. Hon. Members will recall the words of that stirring order, particularly if they were among those to whom it was addressed. We know that as between this side of the House and the other there is a violent cleavage of opinion as to the validity of the private ownership of property, but I venture to think there would be no difference of opinion on the point that there are some things which transcend private ownership, and that document is one of them. I ask the


Lord Advocate to consider whether some practical proposal cannot be devised to require those who in Government offices have the natural custody of documents to make returns, at any rate bring them to the light of day. We should also see whether something could not be done, although it might not be permissible to include it in this Bill, to clarify the law of ownership in regard to Cabinet minutes, military orders and documents of that kind. Unless that be done this Bill may be deemed 500 years hence to have failed of its purpose, and I hope the Minister will do what he can to close the gap which, I believe, exists.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Evans: There is no doubt that there is a great loss of documents of historical importance, not only through disappearance but also through mishandling and mismanagement, and something ought to be done to repair that loss and provide for the due care and preservation of such documents. In supporting this Bill, which seems to be directed to a very useful purpose, I hope the Government will also bear in mind that Scotland is not the only part of the country where importance is attached to documents of this character. There is the same feeling towards them in Wales, and we have there, in the National Library, an institution which would be most suitable for accomplishing for Wales the function which this Bill is put forward to accomplish for Scotland.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. R. Gibson: I rise to join in the chorus of welcome to this Bill. We in Scotland do not really appreciate the great heritage we possess in some of our documents. When the Bar Association of the United States and Canada was visiting Edinburgh some 13 or 14 years ago I was conducting one of the judges of Nova Scotia round the Parliament House, and when I showed him the original copy of the National Covenant he was deeply moved. It was a document in which he was tremendously interested. It had been preserved for Scotland by the Faculty of Advocates, which I do not think has received sufficient recognition for the great services which it has rendered to Scotland in preserving old documents of that character. When the library became too large for the Faculty adequately to

administer it there were two courses open to the Faculty. All the old documents in that great library were the private possession of the Faculty of Advocates, and they could have treated those priceless treasures as their own property and by selling them one by one at Christie's have amassed a very large sum of money; but they chose not to do that. The members of the Faculty of Advocates recognised that this was a great national heritage and the library was handed over to the country. The Faculty of Advocates nationalised their library, and I well recollect making mention of that fact at the first public meeting which I addressed when I was adopted as a candidate for Parliamentary honours. I am proud of the Socialist principles of the Faculty of Advocates as evidenced in that case.
One other topic to which I would allude concerning contemporary documents, which were referred to by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones). We in Edinburgh are accustomed to the value of contemporary historical documents, because our national newspapers in Scotland, the "Scotsman" and the "Glasgow Herald" do give us a current history of events, and I feel the lack of a file of the "Scotsman" and of the "Glasgow Herald," and in particular of the indexes, here in London. The Secretary of State for Scotland might turn that point over in his mind to see whether something useful could he done for Scottish Members in that respect. It is clear from what has been said by hon. Members that a considerable amount of work will be done in Committee on this Bill, which has come to us from another place, and I do hope that when it is passed into law it will become a great milestone in the history of the country which we love so well.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: I think it is fitting that one English Member should say a word of welcome to this Bill, and congratulate the Government on returning to Scotland, where they rightly belong, a great many documents which, from what I can understand, are of purely Scottish origin. I think I may be allowed to say that because, although it is not usual for English Members to join in a Scottish Debate, some of us who have an immense respect and admiration for the Scottish people feel that we are doing here a necessary if tardy measure


of justice to Scotland. I would direct attention to the Schedule for a moment, because although we should wish that the right documents should go back to Scotland it is well to point out that item No. 2 in the Schedule is the Charter of Richard I fixing the allowances to be made to Scottish kings visiting the Court in England. We have a great deal of experience of allowances of various kinds, and as there are so many Scotsmen in London doing so much good work I am not sure that this original record of the allowances made to a Scottish king ought not to remain in London, so that it would be more easy for them to see what happened in past days.
For that reason I should like to be sure, when we come to the Committee stage, that the interests of Scotsmen living in London are properly considered. I do not see any Members representing the North of England present, but item 7 in the Schedule refers to a document which clearly seems to have something to do with Cumberland. If we are to have English documents here and Scottish documents on the other side of the Border a document which so clearly refers to Cumberland ought in all probability to remain in England, unless there is some very good reason for its removal. Although I know little of these documents, yet, as one who has a great appreciation of the value of such things from a sentimental and historical point of view, I am glad that the Scottish people will house in their own capital documents which must be of such vital importance to their nation.

7.45 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: I can only speak again with the leave of the House. I do not propose to attempt in the few minutes which I shall occupy to appraise the almost embarrassing wealth of suggestions for the improvement of this Bill which have been tendered. I should like, however, to deal with one or two specific points on which I was requested to furnish an answer. In the first place the right hon. Gentleman opposite who opened the Debate from his side—and in his speech if I may say so I think all present would recognise the authentic voice of the scholar—referred with a faint touch of criticism to the fact that 10 years have elapsed between the report of Lord Wark's Committee and the presentation of this Bill, but I think he should re-

member that part of the proposals which were envisaged by the Committee involved changes with regard to sheriff clerks, and the Register House in Edinburgh. These changes which were effected in pursuance of Acts of Parliament passed in 1927 and 1928 were necessary in order to clear the ground. I would suggest to him on reconsideration that the delay of 10 years is more apparent than real. He went on and he was supported in this by a great many hon. Members in all parts of the House to plead for an expansion of the area covered by the Bill in relation to ecclesiastical documents and even in the case of the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. G. Morrison) to documents in private hands. Speaking as a student, I have a great deal of sympathy with this; but I would ask hon. Gentlemen in thinking of the Amendments they may desire to put down for the Committee stage to remember that the scope of the Bill is limited to making provision for the public records of Scotland and it would be a very difficult problem to devise any scheme by which private documents in private ownership and custody could be compulsorily transferred to public hands.

Mr. Johnston: Does he suggest that we shall not be allowed to move an Amendment to bring in ecclesiastical documents?

The Lord Advocate: I cannot say what will be allowed, but I am only drawing attention to the fact that some of the sources of supply to which they look for furnishing the Register House with records seem to me to be private sources. Those who are possessed by that sacred thirst which every record scholar has may not be too conscious of the difference between meum and tuum in regard to any manuscript or record, but however that may be I wish to sound a word of warning that it will be very difficult—it may be impossible—to bring within the scope of this or any Bill provisions for expropriating from private ownership documents of the type in question.

Mr. G. A. Morrison: I did not suggest compulsory transfer of documents from private houses. What I was arguing for was an increase in the staff of the Records Office so that private owners might be induced to invite inspection of these treasures.

The Lord Advocate: I thank the hon. Member, but as regards ecclesiastical documents it is within my knowledge that the General Assembly passed in 1932 a deliverance enjoining all kirk sessions to transmit their records to their central library. The hon. Gentleman the junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) raised a point with regard to the transmission and retransmission of local government records. That is almost a Committee point but it does appear to me quite proper that if a local authority transmits its records for custody to the Register House, where they are indexed and placed in the proper place for custody, it seems proper that that body shall not be allowed to chop and change and say, "Give us our records back." They may have a particular document back, but they must return it to the Register House for preservation whenever their purpose is served. As regards the destruction of documents I quite see the point that further safeguards are desirable and I would be willing to consider sympathetically any Amendments directed towards that end and perhaps to suggest some for my own part. The suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. J. Guy), if I correctly understood him, requires correction. He rather suggested that an application made in the Register House for a particular deed might not be capable of being dealt with for a period of as much as three months. I have difficulty in understanding that statement. I am informed that practically any volume of records can be obtained in a matter of five minutes. You may certainly spend a long time studying the document to find what you want but what he suggests is not quite accurate.

Mr. Guy: If I have misinformed the House I apologise but I was only referring to the records which were not indexed and so were inaccessible.

The Lord Advocate: Even as regards that my information is that the volume containing the record will be quickly made available although you may have to spend a long time studying it and deciphering it. As regards the speech of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. Charles Williams) it is unfortunate that he did not hear what I said earlier in the Debate as regards the second and seventh items in the Schedule. Both those documents were in Edinburgh Castle on 29th December,

1282, when they were indexed by officers of Alexander III. Speaking, I am sure, with the support of all Scottish Members interested in this matter I think it will be found that they have the very strongest opposition to giving up any of the documents. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We have waited 650 years for them and have no intention of giving them up.

Mr. Johnston: Will the right hon. Gentleman say in addition that we have paid good hard money for them we were dunned for years by the English for that money, and having paid we want the documents?

Mr. C. Williams: I did try to look at this from a wide point of view. I think at any rate I was the only Englishman to come and say he was pleased you have the document back. I agree it has been a long while but might I not appeal to the Scottish people to let us have just those two documents as a witness of the good work they are doing to-day?

Mr. Mathers: Are we to understand the hon. Member considers he has conferred a favour on us?

Mr. C. Williams: Not in the least. If you are having these documents from England it is not a favour; it is a matter of courtesy when someone says he is glad as an Englishman to see them going back to Scotland. That is my wish, but I put in a plea for the two documents. At the same time I apologise to my right hon. and learned Friend for not having heard his previous speech, and I thank him for his courtesy.

The Lord Advocate: In fairness to the hon. Gentleman, as regards what was said I will simply repeat that the manor of Aldenstone was originally part of the patrimony belonging to the Kings of Scotland. The minute in question is an intimation by King Edward I to the Scottish King that he had of new made a grant of the manor to another party. That minute is truly a Scottish record. I venture to suggest the House should now give a Second Reading to this Bill.

Orders of the Day — MATERNITY SERVICES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Panel of registered medical practitioners.)

It shall be lawful for a local authority, in consultation with the local organisation of registered medical practitioners as referred to in Sub-section (5) of Section one of this Act, to publish annually a panel of registered medical practitioners for the purposes of Section twenty-two of the Midwives (Scotland) Act, 1915, such panel to consist of registered medical practitioners regularly practising midwifery and to be made available to all certified midwives practising within the area of the local authority.—[Mr. Leonard.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. Leonard: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The proposed new Clause differs from the one which appeared on the Paper in Committee, when I regret I was not able to be present, but which I noted from the report had been well supported by my colleagues. The intention of these efforts is really to give a lead to local authorities. There is laid on local authorities a responsibility to provide more domiciliary services to perform the functions of midwifery than has been the case. Under the regulations midwives must in certain circumstances perforce bring in a medical practitioner, and the practitioner must have gained some proficiency in the practice of midwifery. It would have been my duty to present the statistics gathered by the City of Glasgow, but in view of the fact that we are endeavouring to save time and get the discussion of these Bills over expeditiously, I will take the record contained in the Committee proceedings as being sufficient for the purpose. Thirty-three per cent. of the total doctors may be a large number to confine to a special list, but these are occasions of considerable importance and I suggest there is some reason in putting forward the new Clause. I noted, from reading the Committee proceedings, that it was suggested the scheme would not function properly unless a penalty were applied. I feel that a penalty is not needed. I have been informed through what are called the usual channels that the Minister himself may have something to say on that point.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Mathers: I second the new Clause which simply seeks to put into the hands of practising midwives a list of medical practitioners who will be able effectively to assist them in any emergency that they may encounter. When an emergency does arise in a case of childbirth, it is obvious that it is very important to bring the necessary assistance to the midwife quickly. It would be unwise to leave the midwife uncertain over a wide list of doctors that she might find, say, in the telephone directory—uncertain as to which doctor she might appeal to as having the necessary degrees or qualifications. It is in order to ensure that a body of properly qualified medical practitioners should be available to the midwives that this Clause is put forward as a voluntary matter without any penalty.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: I have every sympathy with the object of the new Clause and expressed myself in that sense in the Committee stage. I then promised to give my full attention to it pending the present stage of the Measure. We discussed the matter, I think, a little at cross-purposes. This new Clause, as it says itself, would apply only to Section 22 of the Midwives (Scotland) Act, 1915. In the schemes under this Bill there will be full provision for the midwives to know where the practitioners and, indeed, the specialists are. All this will be provided for in the schemes. That is, perhaps, what hon. Members had in mind when they said they had been informed that I would make some statement. Our impression is that the scheme will cover 80 per cent. of the confinements in Scotland. The other 20 per cent. will be, not the poor people, but the well-to-do, who have their own doctors and are in touch with the obstetric specialist as well. I hope that that assurance will make it possible for hon. Members opposite not to press the proposed new Clause. It will not be left to the midwives to pick a doctor from a casual list of practitioners which may or may riot be issued by the local authorities. It will be the duty of the midwife to be in touch and to work with the woman's own medical attendant, and, if she did not know where the medical attendant was, or where in his absence some other practitioner could be found, then she would be in fault under the new schemes. I hope that hon. Members


opposite will consider that their purpose will be achieved in the schemes under Clause 1 and will not seek to press this proposed new Clause of theirs which, as I have said, relates only to cases coming under a provision which I believe the Bill will put out of date.

Mr. Leonard: A misunderstanding may have arisen, but I am indebted to the Secretary of State for the explanation which he has given, and in view of this I beg leave, with the permission of my colleagues, to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE I.—(Provision of maternity services.)

Amendment made: In page 2, line 35, after "sub-section," insert:
shall secure co-ordination of the arrangements made under sub-section (1) of this section with arrangements made under subsection (2) of this section and."—[Mr. Elliot.]

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, after "section," to insert:
and to every recognised medical school and institution or other organisation engaged in the training of midwives within the area of the authority.
This Amendment is to provide that medical schools and other midwifery training bodies shall have an opportunity to make representations. I think that is the desire of the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 3, line 15, after "organisation," insert "school or institution."

In line 16, after "organisation," insert "school or institution."—[Mr. Elliot.]

CLAUSE 4.—(Compensation to midwives ceasing or required to cease practice.)

Mr. Elliot: I beg to move, in page 6, line 12, to leave out "thirty-five," and to insert "thirty-six."
This Amendment is one of a group, the need for which is occasioned by a certain amount of delay that has taken place in the passing of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 6, line 13, leave out "thirty-first," and insert "fifteenth."

In line 14, leave out "thirty-six," and insert "thirty-seven."

In line 36, leave out "thirty-six," and insert "thirty-seven."

In page 7, line 30, leave out "thirty-six," and insert "thirty-seven."—[Mr. Elliot.]

Mr. Elliot: I beg to move, in page 8, line 25, to leave out "ten," and to insert "fourteen."
The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) and I had some discussion in the Committee stage, and it was agreed that this Clause should be amended on the Report stage to bring it into harmony with Amendments which I accepted for a later Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Prohibition of unqualified persons acting as maternity nurses for gain.)

8.14 p.m.

Mr. Westwood: I beg to move, in page 9, line 9, after "undergoing," to insert "and having undergone at least three years."
We are doing what we can to prove that representatives of the Scottish constituencies can get through their work speedily as well as efficiently. The purpose of this Amendment is to strengthen the prohibition of unqualified persons from acting. Under the Clause at present before the House we feel it would be possible for a young medical student just entering on his studies, or for a temporary nurse just starting on her training, to be able to take control of a case. We say that that is altogether unsatisfactory. Both student and nurse ought to be given a period of training before having the responsibility of dealing with maternity cases. We suggest a period of at least three years' training. Exactly the same applies in the case of a nurse undergoing training. We feel that a woman who has just entered upon her training should not in the first week or two of that training be given the responsibility of dealing with a case. We know that it takes three years to turn out a qualified nurse, and we think that she ought to have served three years of her training before dealing with a case of this kind. We do not wish to place unnecessary obstacles in the way of training either students or nurses, and we


know that there is a time when full responsibility must be accepted, but we claim that the Bill would make it possible for them to be given the responsibility of dealing with a case after a week's or a fortnight's training. Unless we can get a satisfactory explanation we shall be compelled to carry the Amendment to a Division.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. Watson: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do not propose to go into the matter in detail, as my hon. Friend has made it quite clear what the purpose of the Amendment is.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: Again, we had a considerable discussion upon this general point in Committee, and I think the House will follow the discussion because hon. Members who were upon the Committee will remember the practice which existed when the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and myself were both students in Glasgow, and when students were able, on certain occasions, to go out at an earlier stage in their curriculum than is now permitted. I do not think it will be wise for the House to consider the matter as it then stood. Neither medical students nor pupil midwives can now undertake a domiciliary case until they have had a complete theoretical course and adequate practical instruction, including the delivery of women in labour, under qualified supervision in an institution. I beg hon. Members to realise that the existing safeguards go further than the statutory form of their safeguard would carry them. The provision that students are not to undertake any domiciliary case until they have had adequate practical instruction under qualified supervision, and including delivery, goes further than the letter of their Amendment. The general purpose of their Amendment is that a man or woman should have had an adequate training, but hon. Members are perfectly willing to leave it to the authorities to say what that adequate training should be. The only difference is that hon. Members say that students should have had adequate training for a considerable period, and the period they regard as adequate is three years.
The actual conditions go further than that. Under the rules of the General Medical Council, no medical student may

undertake practical midwifery until the last term of the fourth year of his curriculum. I wonder whether hon. Members will be willing to take that assurance as the definite pledge for which they seek? I might go further. The whole matter is governed by schemes, and I undertake, in scrutinising those schemes, to give my personal attention to them arid to ensure that no danger should arise of medical students going out to cases earlier than that period which they have put forward. I do not wish to put the matter into the Statute or to make it too bound and rigid. I am certain that the General Medical Council have no intention whatever of relaxing their rules, and it might well be that their rules will be made stiffer. I do not want to undertake that men shall not go out under three years when the General Medical Council are saying that they shall not go out until the last term of their fourth year. I do not want to make the law less stringent than the professional body concerned consider necessary. I shall certainly scrutinise any such schemes and consider them in conjunction with the rules of the professional bodies which govern the matter, and I will take it as an honourable understanding between the two sides of the House. I can give it with perfect safety because I see no chance whatever of the General Medical Council weakening their provisions. There is actually a tendency that they will heighten their provisions. I hope that the House will consider that my suggestion is adequate, and, if that is so, I will regard that as dealing with the first part relating to medical students.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: I want to be quite clear on this matter. I did not understand that the right hon. Gentleman was quoting from the rules of the General Medical Council. Do I understand him to say that not only is the medical student at the present time not permitted to take his midwifery courses until he is in his fourth year, but that he is not permitted to do domiciliary work until he has completed his practical course in the hospital?

Mr. Elliot: Yes.

Mr. Maxton: He must complete his hospital course before he is allowed to go out to a case in a home?

Mr. Elliot: Yes. To be perfectly accurate I will read what it says:


…until he has had adequate practical instruction, including the delivery of women under qualified supervision in an institution.
I shall not say "until he has completed his course," because that course might go on for a long time, but those in charge are responsible that no man goes out to a domiciliary case until they can guarantee that he has had adequate practical instruction as well as his theoretical course.

Mr. Maxton: Perhaps, in the circumstances, my hon. Friend might decide not to pursue his Amendment. The Secretary of State has stated that the existing position is a better safeguard than the Amendment as framed. The intention of all of us upstairs in discussing this matter was to get a safeguard. The purpose of the Bill is to try to secure that the terrible maternal death rate, and to some extent the infant death rate, shall be substantially reduced. This Bill expresses the belief that that can be secured by the best possible medical and midwifery service at childbirth. That is the idea that led to the Bill being brought forward. This provision to make—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): The hon. Member is going a little far in his interruption. Perhaps he had better wait until the Secretary of State has finished his speech.

Mr. Maxton: If I am only making an interruption, I will sit down at once. I understood, however, that the Secretary of State asked the House whether they were satisfied with his statement on the medical aspect, and suggested that, if they were, he would proceed to the nursing aspect, but that if not he would conclude his speech at that point and allow us to discuss the medical aspect.

Mr. Westwood: That is the point that I was going to ask the Secretary of State to deal with. The whole of his explanation has been directed to the medical student; he has said not a word so far in relation to the training of the nurse who is to complete her course and get a certificate as a midwife. I would like to ask what explanation he proposes to make with regard to the proposal of the second Amendment, which deals, not with the medical student, but with the nurse.

Sir Robert Tasker: Could my right hon. Friend assure the House that medical students as such will not attempt cases outside the hospital until they are fully qualified, and that nurses will hold a certificate equal to that of the Central Midwives Board?

Mr. Elliot: It was agreed, of course, that on the whole the Amendments should be discussed together, but perhaps, as the discussion has developed, it might be more for the convenience of the House, if I have satisfied hon. Members on this point, that a further discussion should take place on the case of the midwife. We have been reproved by you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for turning the Report stage of a Bill into a Committee stage, and I am anxious not to transgress the Rules by speaking more than once, even with the leave of the House, upon an Amendment. Therefore, I would say that it seems to me that the explanation I have given might reasonably satisfy the House on the first point, with regard to the medical student. I do not know whether it will fully satisfy the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), though I rather gathered from his remarks that he thought it was satisfactory from that point of view.

Mr. Maxton: I was going, if I were making a speech and not merely an interruption, to take the view that the Secretary of State's reply disposed of the Amendment on the Paper, but did not dispose of the problem that we were trying to meet upstairs, and I would have urged him to look at this matter again with a view to getting inserted, before the Bill finally becomes law, some provision to secure that no woman in a poor home in the worst districts of our big cities in Scotland should be delivered of a child by some student who was for the first time facing in home conditions—in slum conditions—the task of a serious midwifery case. I do not wish to injure his training in any way, but I do not want to see women become merely experimental ground for the training of medical students, and, therefore, I want to see some regulation under which, in every case he takes, he should be accompanied by a qualified experienced medical man. That is all I would ask in the way of safeguard.

Mr. Westwood: After the explanation of the Secretary of State, and the pledge he has given, which will be recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT, I am, with the consent of the House, prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I would ask the hon. Member whether, in view of the discussion, he would like to move his next Amendment formally, in order that the Secretary of State may give an explanation?

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Westwood: I beg to move, in page 9, line II after "or," to insert:
who, while undergoing and having undergone at least two years' training with a view to becoming.
I formally move this Amendment because up to the present we have received no explanation concerning the nurse. The right hon. Gentleman's explanation on the training of the medical student was quite satisfactory, and the House has accepted his pledge, but I think we are entitled to an explanation with regard to the nurse, because, unless there is some good explanation, it will be possible for a nurse just entering upon training to have the responsibility of dealing with a case without having received adequate training.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: The hon. Member will realise that this Amendment stands on a somewhat different footing from the previous Amendment, since it deals essentially with the subordinate, who would not regard herself as being in charge of the case, while the previous Amendment, quite rightly, dealt with the responsible position of a medical man, or someone acting as a medical man, who would be rightly expected to take full responsibility for the case.

Mr. Westwood: Is it not a fact that, even under the proposals of the Bill, a midwife can take full responsibility in connection with a case, and that, even under the Bill, there is no compulsion on a midwife to call in a fully qualified medical practitioner?

Mr. Elliot: I am not speaking so much of the statutory position as of the fact that a midwife can rightly put responsibility on the shoulders of the medical

practitioner, and it is generally admitted that a greater responsibility falls on the fully qualified medical practitioner than on the midwife. I do not wish to stress the matter, but it is understood that the midwife, if she finds herself in any kind of difficulty, is expected to call in a medical practitioner, whereas it would be quite wrong for a medical practitioner who found himself in any kind of difficulty to be expected immediately to call in some other medical practitioner. I go no further than that. Starting from that point, let us see what the present position is. The full course of the midwife's curriculum under the rules of the Central Midwives Board extends over only 12 months, and, therefore, I do not think the Amendment would be possible in practice. The Central Midwives Board contemplate an extended period of training, but not, I think, to the extent which would render this Amendment practicable. Women who are already registered nurses under the Nurses Registration Act qualify as midwives after a six months' course, but, of course, being registered as nurses, they have had a long training already. I think that the hon. Member has more in view people, A ho are working for the full course of the midwife's curriculum under the Central Midwives Board. Looking at the matter from that point of view, it would be difficult for this House to start amending by Statute—because that is what it comes to—the rules of the Central Midwives Board. I think that an Amendment which would work within the limits of the curriculum laid down by the Central Midwives Board would be sound, and that is really what the Central Midwives Board try to make sure of—that is to say, that no one should be asked to undertake this tremendous responsibility without having gone through a course, which the responsible professional people thought was a proper course to fit them to undertake the responsibility. I think that is the point of view of the hon. Member for Bridgeton and I am sure it is the point of view of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment.

Mr. Westwood: Even if these words cannot give effect to that principle, there is time between now and the later stages to get the principle inserted in the Bill. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that he will look into it and give effect to it?

Mr. Elliot: It is, I think, admitted that the Amendment as it stands would not be practicable, because it goes further than the rules of the Central Midwives Board. I should, however, be very glad to look into the question whether there is any loophole or gap by which comparatively untrained persons could be faced with this very great responsibility. My belief is that that would not and could not arise. My information is that, even if a woman undergoing training under the Central Midwives Board was also a pupil midwife, she would not be allowed to undertake a domiciliary case unless she had had a complete course of theoretical instruction and had had adequate practical instruction, including experience of the delivery of women, under qualified supervision, in an institution. I am not quite so familiar with the conditions of the training of midwives as with the training of doctors, therefore, I will undertake to look into it. But all that could be secured in the schemes if necessary, because the schemes have to be framed in conjunction with the local authority and, furthermore, they come before the Department and they are subject to its consideration and approval. If my experience goes for anything, the woman would be rather too anxious, if anything, to summon expert assistance from outside if there were the slightest sign of anything going wrong. The first time one is confronted with this emergency, one's tendency is always to run for help rather than to face up, as some day or other one has to face up, to the responsibility alone. The danger is far more that they will delay and shirk the responsibility that they are asked to assume, rather than lightly or rashly undertake it. If the House will take it from me that I will look into this matter and that I take the responsibility on myself to see that in this great public service untrained people do not get the opportunity or the risk of experimenting upon those for whom we are passing this Measure, I am sure they will not regret it.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I should like to get the Minister's assurance a little clearer, but may I first say a word with regard to the point about the natural inclination of a half-trained person to send for assistance? I think it slightly misses the point. The point is not whether an untrained woman, attending as a midwife,

will not in the hour of emergency send for someone else, but whether some institution shall or shall not send to attend on a case a person who is not fully qualified. The question whether in an emergency she might get out of her responsibility is not a primal factor. The question is whether she shall be sent at all. I understand the right hon. Gentleman is going to look into the matter with a view to discovering one or two things, first, whether he has the power himself to ensure that the regulations that are made fulfil the wishes of the House, in which case he is giving a pledge that he will insist that that is done. If he finds, on the other hand, that he is not in that position, I understand his pledge to mean that he will consider whether, in another place, he can get an Amendment inserted which will give expression to the wishes of the House, with which, I think, he is in full accord.

Sir R. Tasker: Might not apprehension be removed if, instead of saying a nurse shall have six months training, we say that she should possess the Midwives Board's certificate before she is permitted to attend?

Mr. Elliot: I doubt whether that would be possible. It would be like saying, "You must not go near the water until you can swim." There must be cases in which a person is not technically fully qualified, though we believe him to be morally qualified to attend upon a case. After that, they get their certificate, which enables them to go out and work on their own. I believe the position to be satisfactory from the point of view of the spirit of the Amendments which are being pressed upon us. Technically, the Amendment is impossible, because it would impose a length of service which is not demanded under the rules of the Central Midwives Board. My impression is that adequate and full safeguards are provided by the existing practice under rules laid down by a statutory body, in the other case the General Medical Council, and in this case the Central Midwives Board. I undertake to look into that and if, as I believe, that practice is satisfactory, I shall see that there is no way in which proposals can be made which would give less safeguards than those that exist at present under the rules


of these statutory bodies. If, for any reason, the position is not fully safeguarded, I will undertake to look into it, with a view to having an Amendment inserted in another place. I cannot say that an Amendment will be inserted, but I will hold myself morally bound to go into it, and if I find it cannot be done, I will come back to my hon. Friends and do my best to convince them of the reasons that have led me to that conclusion.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. Maclean: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that what is looked upon as a practice is very often evaded, whereas, if it is made statutory that such and such a thing must be done, failure to do it would entail loss of the certificate? If the apprentice or student midwives are only to be told "This is the custom" or "This is the practice" instead of "This is the law," which means that they are liable to prosecution and also that their certificate will be taken away as a fully qualified midwife, it is a very different matter. Should not that point be considered also?

Mr. Elliot: We are considering persons who are undergoing a course of training with the object of obtaining a certificate. In these circumstances I believe that the discipline of the professional body is much the greatest safeguard which the public and this House can have. They are statutory bodies and the danger of ignoring the rules of a statutory body is quite as great from the point of view of the penalty which the hon. Member suggested as the danger of ignoring a Statute, because if they did not fulfil the rules of the statutory body they would be deprived of their certificate and be subjected to tremendous professional penalties, so severe that very often hon. Members of this House have protested against their severity. I think that a professional body will discipline a professional person as severely as any court of law could do. I believe that the course I have suggested commends itself to hon. Members opposite, and, if so, can we not leave any further discussion?

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: My difficulties are not fully met in this matter, because the right hon. Gentleman says that he is relying upon the appropriate professional organisations to see to this matter. I

would point out that the evil we are trying to combat has grown up under existing professional organisations.

Mr. Elliot: In the experience of the hon. Member and in our own experience the evil to which he refers has been combated and is in process of eradication under these professional bodies. What we have in mind is whether junior medical students are going to be sent to cases. I think that has been entirely abolished. We are now discussing the question of midwives, and I do not think the danger is so great there. I think the professional bodies are tightening up their regulations almost every year in regard to these things.

Mr. Maxton: I can still see from the explanation given by the Minister the case of a woman in my division, living in a single room or a two-apartment house, living in poverty and on public assistance, having to face childbirth and having as attendants a medical student doing his first domiliciary case and a midwife student doing her first domiciliary case. I am referring to my division and not to the West End. I have in mind one of my municipal wards where the infantile death rate is the highest in Glasgow. It is there that I want the death-rate reduced and the maternal death-rate reduced, but that is the very place where, when an S.O.S. is sent to a maternity hospital for help, that a woman is going to have a baby in such and such tenement, down will come posthaste two very eager people, a young medical student and a young nurse, neither of them having had any experience on their own of domiciliary treatment of a childbirth case. I want to make sure about this matter.
I heard the answer of the hon. Gentleman the hon. Member for Holborn (Sir R. Tasker) that it was like saying people must not go near the water until they had learned to swim, but I would point out that most people who are teaching their young folk to swim take care that they do not go into deep water until they have attained reasonable proficiency in swimming and there is standing by an experienced swimmer. What I want, although it may not be possible to get it on the Statute Book, but possibly it may be possible to get it into the local regulations, is that in my constituency the poorest people—whatever happens in the


West End, where they have money and can make what arrangements they please —shall be guaranteed that if there is to be an apprentice nurse and a student doctor in attendance there shall also be a fully qualified doctor standing by.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: The statutory position of the Central Midwives Board is such that the Minister himself has to approve the rules of that board. They are also submitted for criticism to the General Medical Council. I have undertaken to look into the question whether there is a possibility of a practice such as the hon. Member described. I am told that there is no such possibility. If I am satisfied of this I shall consider myself to have discharged the undertaking that I have given to the House.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Westwood: After the very clear explanation given by the Secretary of State and his further promise, which was made still more definite in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), that he will insist that any person not fully qualified shall not be allowed to take sole control of the delivery of a child, I am prepared to accept his undertaking and to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: I beg to move, in page 9, line 26, to leave out sub-paragraph (iii).
This is an Amendment which has been laid on my doorstep, and I have taken over the paternity. No doubt it will commend itself to hon. Members opposite, just as it has commended itself to me.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for adopting the paternity of this Amendment, and also of the next Amendment, which stands in our joint names. We thought that there was no ground for the exemption in the Bill as it stood, and I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has adopted our view and that he is accepting these Amendments.

Mr. R. Gibson: I also wish to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman. We discussed this matter in Committee, and I put certain questions on the Order

Paper for written answer, and I have no doubt they assisted the right hon. Gentleman to take up the position which he has now adopted.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 9, line 28, leave out sub-paragraph (iv).—[Mr. Elliot.]

SECOND SCHEDULE.

Amendment made: In page 15, line 9, leave out "thirty-six" and insert "thirty-seven."—[Mr. Elliot.]

Orders of the Day — HARBOURS, PIERS AND FERRIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Minor works.)

(1) Where,—

(a) a local or harbour authority in whom a marine work to which Part III of this Act applies is vested are desirous of undertaking the construction, reconstruction, extension or improvement of any works, machinery or conveniences ancillary to, or in connection with the marine work; or
(b) a local authority are desirous of undertaking the construction, reconstruction, extension or improvement of a marine work within any of the following counties, namely, the counties of Argyll, Inverness, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland, Caithness, Orkney and Zetland, or within any burgh situate therein,
and in either case it is shown to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that the cost of the necessary operations will not exceed five thousand pounds, the Secretary of State may authorise such authority to undertake the same, subject to and in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Second Schedule to this Act.

(2) Any works constructed under the foregoing Sub-section which are ancillary to or in connection with a marine work shall, for the purposes of this Act or of any other Act relating to the marine work, be deemed to be part thereof.—[The Lord Advocate.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.56 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Hon. Members will remember that in Committee the discussion centred on Clause 7 of the Bill which had for its purpose the provision of a cheap and short method of authorising the construction of minor works. The discussion


centred upon the question as to whether this shorter method should be confined in its operation to the Highland counties which were set out in the Clause. As a result of that discussion my right hon. Friend and I undertook to see whether we could extend this cheaper and more expeditious procedure. The result is the new Clause. The first part of the Clause, paragraph (a) will be universal throughout Scotland, and any local or harbour authority anywhere can undertake work which is ancillary to or in connection with marine works. The second part of the Clause we propose to confine to the Highland counties. The power may be utilised not only for works which are ancillary to or in connection with marine works but for any works connected with the construction or improvement of marine works. We have recast Clause 7 in this form, with a further extension of the monetary limit from £3,000 to £5,000.
We have gone as far as it is practicable to go in the direction which the Committee desired and have made this cheap and shorter procedure as wide as possible. We do not consider it possible to allow entirely new works to be constructed outside the Highland counties under this procedure, for the simple reason that in the Lowlands, in the Firth of Forth and in the Firth of Clyde there are conflicting interests which inevitably require to receive consideration of a more formal character than would be possible under this shorter procedure. It is thought that the appropriate procedure in such cases is by Provisional Order procedure. We have moved this new Clause instead of moving a number of small Amendments to the original Clause 7, and we have incorporated the best of the suggestions which were put forward in Committee. It now provides the greatest common measure of expedition and economy it is possible to achieve.

Mr. Kennedy: I have no desire to disturb the unanimity of our proceedings on Scottish affairs, and in view of the explanation given by the Lord Advocate as to how the new Clause will affect harbour authorities I do not propose to move the Amendment I moved in Committee, and which I withdrew on the understanding that the matter would be reconsidered.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Adaptation of 24 & 25 Vict. c. 45., etc.)

Amendment made: In page 5, line 12, at the end, insert:
and for references to a secretary or assistant secretary there shall be substituted references to a person authorised by the Secretary of State."—[The Lord Advocate.]

CLAUSE 7.—(Minor works.)

Amendment made: In page 6, line 38, leave out the Clause.—[The Lord Advocate.]

CLAUSE 9.—(Powers of authority in relation to marine work.)

9.2 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 8, line 21, leave out "and deepen," and to insert "deepen and maintain."
In Committee upstairs the question was raised whether there was an express or implied power to maintain in the Bill or in any of the Acts which are incorporated in the present Bill. We have looked into the matter and for the purpose of putting the question beyond doubt we have thought it necessary to insert the word "maintain."

Mr. Johnston: The words meet the precise point which was raised in Committee, and we are glad that the Amendment has been moved.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 10.—(Application of 10 and 11 Vict. c. 27, etc.)

9.3 p.m.

Sir D. Thomson: I beg to move, in page 10, line 12, to leave out Sub-section (3).
The Lord Advocate said that he would look into this matter before Report stage. The Brussels International Maritime Conference adopted an international Convention for the unification of certain rules of law relating to the limitation of a liability of owners of sea-going vessels, and this Convention recommends, although there was a protocol, a limit of liability with regard to wrecks. The Bill goes against this Convention. All those connected with sea-going vessels attach very much importance to this Convention. I would not like hon. Members to think that as a shipowner I am trying to get away with anything. The position is that citizens of this country will benefit as passengers under the Convention. In the case of the "Titanic," for instance, under


British law the owners were limited in liability to £500,000. Under the Convention the liability would have been about £275,000 and they actually paid £200,000. Under United States law they would have been limited to £20,000. Therefore, it would still be a very great advantage to British persons travelling in foreign ships to have the Convention ratified. I hope the Lord Advocate will assure us that the inclusion of this Clause in the Bill will not prejudice the consideration of the whole of the Convention. I would also like him to give some hope to shipowners that progress is being made with the drafting of the necessary legislation to ratify the Convention.
A further point which I would like to put to those responsible for drawing up this Clause and those who draw up similar clauses in private Bills is whether there is, in fact, any protection. We are very much apt to think of large liners and cargo vessels—insured vessels —sinking at sea. In this Bill we are dealing with very small harbours used by correspondingly small vessels, such as fishing vessels and barges. Very many of them are owned by poor men, whose only means of livelihood they are. Probably they are the only capital of these poor men, and—what is very important—are almost certainly not insured. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Major Neven-Spence) and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) will bear me out on that point. If one of those vessels sank with a cargo of cement, the cost of removing it might be very much more than the cost of a new vessel. What is a local authority to do in those circumstances? Is it to bankrupt the small owner, to take his house and furniture and put his family on to the street?
Hon. Members know that there are very many small foreign coasting vessels under a foreign flag—what might be called family-owned vessels—where the owner is the master and his family are hands on the craft, and if one of those vessels sank, it would neither be possible nor practicable to get any money from the owner. In those cases, the cost would come on to the local authorities, and would fall on to the rates or on to other users of the port. It should be the duty

of these small harbours to insure against that risk. The risk is small also the premium. Taken for all the small harbours in Scotland, the cost would be trifling, although for one particular harbour the cost of an accident might be entirely out of proportion to the resources of the harbour. I understand that such an insurance could be made at a very nominal premium. I suggest that this Clause, if it deludes small harbour authorities into thinking that their liability is extinguished, is a danger, and I think that the Government might keep that point before the authorities, not only in their own interest, but in common fairness to the small men who use them.

9.10 p.m.

Major Neven-Spence: I beg to second the Amendment.
In this Bill we are dealing mainly with small harbours frequented by small coasting vessels, very largely fishing vessels. Many of them are owned by the skippers or by a combination of poor men who, if they lose their fishing boat, lose everything. I think it would be very hard for these men to be in the position that if, through stress of weather, they lost a boat in the conditions visualised in this Subsection, they would be liable, as I suppose they would be, for the cost of removing such a vessel. It may be said that these things do not happen very frequently, but many of these harbour works are small and difficult to get into in bad weather, and it happens from time to time that a small fishing boat is cast away. It is not long ago that I saw an instance in Aberdeen. A trawler coming in was struck by enormous seas just as she got to the mouth of the harbour and was thrown on to the breakwater and sunk, a man being drowned before anything could be done to save him.
I realise that this is more or less a permissive Clause. At the same time, a boat fishing at Banff might be cast away and the people there might be sympathetic in not seeking to recover the money, but I am not so sure that a Banff boat fishing off Peterhead and cast away there would get the same sympathy. I feel that the proposal made by the hon. Baronet is a sound one. When a small boat is cast away in these circumstances, it is an act of God. It is very hard to make the individual suffer for it, and I think it is much more a case for the community. The pro-


posal that small harbours should insure against accidents of this sort, which they could do for a very small sum, would be a much happier solution.

9.13 p.m.

Sir A. Sinclair: I have listened with very great interest to the speeches made by the two hon. Members, and I agree that they have made an interesting case from the point of view of the small owners. I cannot help agreeing with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Major Neven-Spence), even without his reservation, that if it was a case of a small fishing boat being wrecked, for example, at the mouth of the harbour at Banff, the authority would not proceed with all the rigour of the law and compel a small boat such as that to pay heavy damages. Indeed, I do not imagine the cost of moving such a small boat would be prohibitive. As a matter of fact, that is not the only damage that can occur in the Islands and Highlands of Scotland. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland has not yet had the experience in his constituency—and I hope he will not have it—which we had on the North Coast of Caithness of a great ship called the "Linkmoor," a cargo boat belonging to the well-known Moore Line, which was wrecked there, and was washed ashore at the mouth of the tiny harbour of Scarffskerry. It blocked the harbour completely, so that the fishermen could not go in and out at certain stages of the tide, although, of course, they could at some stages.
There was no question of insurance for a small place such as Scarffskerry, any more than for hundreds of little places round the coast of Orkney and Shetland, for there is nobody there to take out an insurance. It was, of course, far beyond the means of the local people to move the wreck. They applied to the county council, and it was also far beyond its means to move it. Then they applied to every Government Department, one after another. The Fishery Board was asked, but it said the question had nothing to do with it. The Wrecks Department of the Board of Trade was asked, but it could not do anything in the matter. The Admiralty were asked, but, of course, they would not do anything. The lawyers advised us that, in fact, the ship had been abandoned, and that there was no

claim that could be made in law against its owners. As I understand it, under this Clause a claim can be made. I am very glad to think that that is so and I hope that the Clause covers a case of the kind to which I have referred, because that sort of case seriously damages the interests of a number of small fishermen. Therefore, while I understand that there is much to be said for the case which has been stated so persuasively by the hon. Baronet the Member for South Aberdeen (Sir D. Thomson) and the hon. and gallant Member for Orkney and Shetland (Major Neven-Spence) I think there is also a case on the other side.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. Maclean: I do not wish to safeguard a situation such as that outlined by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) but may I put this point to the Secretary of State? Would it not meet the case put by the hon. Baronet the Member for South Aberdeen (Sir D. Thomson) and the hon. and gallant Member for Orkney and Shetland (Major Neven-Spence) if, instead of the word "shall," we inserted the word "may." The Clause at present says "the deficiency shall be recoverable" from the registered owners of the vessel. If that were made to read "the deficiency may be recoverable" it would safeguard the interests of the harbour authority in a situation such as that outlined by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland by making it possible for them to have the ship removed by the owners if they could not take action themselves. At the same time, I think it would meet the purpose of the Amendment. But to delete the entire paragraph would mean that nothing at all need be done and would leave the local authorities even more helpless than they are.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: To deal with the last point first, I think the case is met by the wording of the Clause as it stands. I ask the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) to note that the Clause does not say "shall be recovered" but "shall be recoverable." You can either have "may be recovered" or "shall be recoverable," both of which are optional, or you can have "shall be recovered" which would


be mandatory. But "may be recoverable" does not make sense. It introduces two permissive words and would be bad draftsmanship. The hon. Member may take it that the Clause is optional as it stands and I am so advised by the Lord Advocate.

Mr. Maclean: Some maritime lawyers might advise the other way.

Mr. Elliot: That may be so, but I am not looking for snow before it falls, or to the opinion of any other lawyers while I have one of the best lawyers in Scotland beside me. The Clause, I am advised, is optional, and therefore the case put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Major Neven-Spence) about the small boat which goes ashore, and the master of which loses his all and is subsequently liable to proceedings by a Shylock of a local authority, would not, I think arise. After all, in a small area the members of the local authority themselves are likely to be men subject to the hazards of the sea, who have experienced, in their own persons, similar accidents and possibly disasters. I believe that in these cases they would show the spirit of comradeship which is one of the features of seafaring life. I do not think the small man need apprehend unreasonable treatment by harbour authorities.
Then we come to the well-known case of the Linkmoor and the harbour of Scarffskerry. I think it unreasonable for a large company whose ship has gone ashore and filled up the entrance to a harbour to say to the harbour authorities, "You can have the ship." They do not want the ship. It would cost a great deal more to take away the ship than they could get for it. In the case of a small harbour it might be cheaper to pull down the harbour and build it somewhere else than to move the ship. Harbour authorities in such a case might reasonably say: "We do not think it fair for you to walk off leaving your great ship blocking up our harbour, and then to proceed to run other ships up and down the coast, one of which may bump ashore at the next harbour, and all the time we have no redress." I think it is reasonable to say that recourse may be had against the owners of a ship for a sum which might easily transcend the proceeds of a special rate in some of these

places on the iron-bound coasts of the islands around the North of Scotland. I think therefore the Clause is justifiable on the merits.
I come to the last point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Aberdeen (Sir D. Thomson). He asked, were we sure that this part of the Clause did not prejudice the signing of an international Convention which would be of great value to British shipowners and the British mercantile marine generally? He asked for an assurance that everything possible was being done to press on with the signing of that Convention. I fear it is beyond my power to give that assurance. The President of the Board of Trade, who takes a great interest in shipping matters, is the most appropriate person to be in charge of a shipping convention and if he cannot get it through nobody can get it through. The hon. Baronet asked me was I sure that I was not doing something here which would make it impossible for my right hon. Friend to get that Convention through. I do not think so. In the first place, 40 harbour authorities in the United Kingdom already have this power. It has been granted to them individually.
Then the hon. Baronet said that those were cases of private legislation but this was a public Bill, and he asked, would the public Bill injure the cause of the ratification of the Convention? I am assured that it would not and I am so assured by the Department most concerned, namely the Board of Trade. I have letters here from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade of 16th March and 8th April in which he gives an assurance that this Sub-section will not prejudice the position as to the ratification of the Brussels Convention of 1924 on the limitation of shipowners' liability. I am also advised that there is no inconsistency between the Clause and the Convention. I hope, in view of that assurance, which I give on the word of responsible advisers and as a Cabinet Minister doing my best to advise the House, that my hon. Friends will not find it necessary to press the Amendment.

9.25 p.m.

Major Neven-Spence: It will be within the recollection of the House that during the War the Admiralty sank a number of ships at Orkney, in the Holm and Water Sounds, thereby completely


destroying two fishing ports and destroying for all time the livelihoods of people dependent upon those ports. If this Bill becomes law, will it now be possible for the County Council of Orkney to remove these ships and send the bill into the Admiralty?

9.26 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: No, Sir. I have the best legal opinion in Scotland sitting by my side, but I doubt whether he would advise me on this point and I doubt whether I would ask him to. I should have to consider first whether the Board of Admiralty were the registered owners of these vessels. I think that the hon. Member has quite rightly seized a Parliamentary opportunity of calling attention to a grievance.

Sir D. Thomson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 11.—(By-laws.)

9.27 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I beg to move, in page II, line 31, to leave out from "State," to the end of the Clause.
The effect of the Amendment would be that the words at the end of the proviso of Sub-section (3) of Clause 11 namely, "and the confirmation of any such by-laws by the Secretary of State or the Board of Trade shall be sufficient evidence of compliance with the provisions of this Sub-section," would be struck out of the Bill. I am quite at a loss to understand why it should be necessary to put in these particular words. The Lord Advocate and some other hon. Members know the objection to this form of words. A provision of this kind prevents the validity of a by-law or regulation being challenged in the courts after it is made. I know that we have had Clauses of this sort in former legislation. They have been in a slightly different form. On former occasions the wording has been "conclusive evidence"; here the words are, "sufficient evidence." I agree that the word "sufficient" is not as strong as the word "conclusive," but it seems to me that the effect is very much the same. No doubt the Lord Advocate will tell me if I am wrong in that. When you have words like these in an Act of Parliament, it means that the Minister may entirely disregard the statutory instructions given him by Par-

liament. He may do something which is ultra vires or illegal and no one who is affected has any sort of redress.
It will be within the recollection of some hon. Members that Clauses of this sort were considered with great care by the Donoughmore Committee on Ministers' Powers. They were emphatic in their report, which was unanimous and signed by Members of all parties, when they said that a Clause of this kind is never justified. Since that report in 1932 there has been only one occasion when the Government of the day have sought to bring in a Clause of this kind. Strangely enough, it was the same Minister who was responsible then who is in charge of this Bill. That was on the Agricultural Marketing Bill of 1933, when a finality Clause similar to this was proposed to be put into that Bill. On that occasion we protested; we were voted down by a combination of the other parties in the House, but eventually a change was made in another place. I have looked carefully at the words of this Clause and I agree that it does not make much difference here.
This is not a Clause where there is a large number of steps to be taken; the only provision which has to be carried out is consultation between the Secretary of State and the Board of Trade, but I submit to the Lord Advocate that it is an exeedingly unfortunate precedent if we pass these words. The Donoughmore Committee, on which all parties were represented, reported in 1932, and never since that time has a Clause in this form been inserted in any Act of Parliament. It would be unfortunate if we were to make a fresh precedent now. It would not weaken the purpose of this Clause if these words were left out. They are entirely unnecessary here, and I hope that the Lord Advocate will tell us whether it is not possible to leave out these words.

9.30 p.m.

Sir A. Sinclair: I beg to Amendment.

The Lord Advocate: The hon. Member has on more than one occasion quite justly voiced his apprehension of finality Clauses and his objection to them on principle. I think that he admitted that there are finality Clauses and finality Clauses, and that this particular one is not really of the type to which his objection in principle takes effect. If the


House will look at the terms of the closing words of Clause 11, they will see that the confirmation of such by-laws by the Secretary of State is sufficient evidence of compliance with the provisions "of this Sub-section." That is all, and all that this Sub-section is concerned with is to provide that in certain circumstances the Board of Trade and not the Secretary of State shall confirm the by-laws. Therefore, the limit of the finality which these words provide for is finality as to the correct department for confirming the bylaws. Accordingly the question for the House to consider is: Is it desirable that the door should be left open for litigation as to whether the Board of Trade or the Secretary of State is the correct Department? Although I am a lawyer, I am public-spirited enough to think that here there should be no door left open for litigation.

Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really suggest that litigation is at all probable on such a point?

The Lord Advocate: I think it is not, and for that very reason I am surprised at the Amendment. My submission is that, having regard to the very limited purpose which this Clause is designed to achieve, it is better to leave these words in.

Mr. Foot: The Lord Advocate has not answered the principal point which I made. The Donoughmore Committee—we have been told on several occasions to bear its recommendations in mind—reported that a Clause of this kind was never justified. Is it the intention of the Government to ignore their recommendations entirely in this regard?

The Lord Advocate: Quite frankly, I do not read the Donoughmore Report as being directed against the limited finality Clause which this is, as contrasted the very different type of finality Clause of which the hon. Member gave an example. I accordingly must resist this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 12.—(Power to fix and to revise dues.)

Amendment made: In page II, line 43, leave out "may," and insert "shall."—[The Lord Advocate.]

9.35 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 12, line 2, after "and," to insert:
except in any case where the approval of the Secretary of State has been obtained.
When this Clause was under consideration we undertook to consider further whether it might not be too rigid to provide that in no case should harbour or local authorities be entitled to collect less than 75 per cent. of the scheduled dues. Having looked into the matter, it has occurred to us that much the best way of dealing with that difficulty was to make exceptions where the approval of the Secretary of State has been obtained. That will enable exceptional cases to be dealt with on their merits. I wish to emphasise that it is intended to make these cases definitely exceptional in order that there shall be a full safeguard against a diminution of earning capacity of the harbour authorities and in consequence financial instability.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 15.—(Duty of maintenance by authority receiving assistance from public funds.)

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: I beg to move, in page 14, line 12, after "assistance," to insert "exceeding fifty per cent. per annum."
This Amendment is designed to restrict the operations of this Clause in view of the danger of unreasonable demands being made under the authority of the Clause upon local or harbour authorities. This Clause empowers the appropriate Department to require any harbour or local authority to whom a grant or loan of any kind has been granted to execute works designed to restore that harbour to an efficient condition and a proper state of repair. The important aspect of the Clause is that whatever the assistance by way of loan or grant that may have been given to the harbour or local authority, the appropriate Government Department is for ever afterwards entitled to require that authority to carry out works of repair on the most extensive scale. I realise that in subsequent provisions there are certain rights of appeal which entitled the harbour or local authority to appeal to the sheriff, and the sheriff has power either to cancel the requisition or to modify it.
I would submit, however, that that is not an adequate safeguard having regard to the fact that local or harbour authorities are generally very responsible bodies, in many cases as responsible as the appropriate Department which may call upon them to execute these words. Under Clause 31 the appropriate Department which is vested with these great powers means, as regards any marine work, the Fishery Board for Scotland or the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, according as the Secretary of State may nominate. It is a reasonable request that the appropriate Department should not be invested with these powers unless the grant or loan which has been made by the State exceeds 50 per cent. of the cost of any given work.
I should like to comment upon the rather anomalous and inconsistent attitude of the Government when dealing with local authorities in comparison with their attitude towards private organisations to which State money is granted. We repeatedly find examples of vast sums being paid to private organisations and the Government are not concerned to impose any restrictions upon them. Here, however, if they give a pound towards the execution of some harbour work, they seek power for ever afterwards to require the harbour or local authority to execute vast works of repair or renovation. It seems to me reasonable and more appropriate to the standing of the authorities that they should not be liable to be called upon to execute these vast repairs unless the State has made more than 50 per cent. grant or loan. I trust that the Lord Advocate will not refer me to the safeguard of appeal to a sheriff because, after all, a sheriff is only a private individual. The local authority is a publicly elected body capably advised by the most eminent professional advisers, and responsible in many cases to the public for the administration of public money.

Mr. R. Gibson: I beg to second the Amendment.

9.42 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: Before addressing myself to the arguments on this Amendment I should like to inform the House of one or two facts which I did not have available when this point was discussed upstairs, but which it is desirable to have as a kind of background to our

discussion. I have obtained particulars of the actual grants and loans provided either by the Fishery Board for Scotland, or the Development Commissioners, or the Department of Agriculture for Scotland during the last three years. Without going into the matter in detail, I think I can accurately summarise the situation when I say that out of some 35 or 40 cases the commonest percentage of grants, as far as I can see from glancing down the list, is 100 per cent. It is only in one or two isolated cases where there is a special extension to be made, as for instance at Stornoway, where a special extra grant was made, where the figure falls below 75 per cent. A typical figure is 75 per cent., in other cases it is 85 per cent., and in many cases 100 per cent.

Mr. Johnston: Are there any under 50 per cent.? If not, would it not be very easy to accept the Amendment?

The Lord Advocate: I will deal with that in a moment. There is one case where the percentage is 47 and one case, which is footnoted as a special case—Stornoway, a very large undertaking—where a special grant of 10 per cent. of the total expenditure was made. These were exceptional. In all the other cases the lowest figure I can find is 65 per cent. With these figures at the back of our minds, it is not much good arguing that if the Government give a shilling to a harbour authority we assert the right to insist on repairs in the future. The fact is that in the normal case, when the Government give anything at all, they give a very large proportion of the cost of the particular operations. Putting that aside, I will come to the Amendment. The real difficulty is to accept any percentage figure in relation to an operation which varies so widely. If the Amendment were accepted the Clause would read:
Where any assistance exceeding 50 per cent. by way of grant or loan.
The difficulty is that normally grants are given not for entirely new construction but for improvements and repair work, and I have a great difficulty in deciding in my own mind what it is of which you are to take 50 per cent., because as the years go by there may be a pier or harbour with a patch here to which the Government contributed £10,000 and a patch there to which the Government contributed £500, and in 10,


15 or 20 years would it be possible to say as regards any harbour or project what percentage of assistance had been given? Should we have to look at the harbour as a whole, or regard each operation separately; and are we to build up a kind of history of the works and the sums expended on them and the proportions in which they have been contributed by the harbour authorities and the Government? I am confident that that system would not work, and for that reason that we have pinned our faith throughout this discussion to the method in Sub-section (2), which seems to provide all the safeguards required, of appeal to the sheriff, with a power and duty on the part of the sheriff to take into consideration all the circumstances of the case in determining whether or not it is appropriate that a requirement sought to be imposed on the local authority must be complied with. I think that is the correct method of dealing with the matter, and that the attempt to apply an arithmetical percentage to an undefinable factor must really fail.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: The same difficulty which the Lord Advocate envisages in respect of this Amendment will be encountered in deciding whether assistance of any kind has been given to the marine work, because the marine work is not defined as meaning the whole comprehensive work, but may be a part of the marine work, such as a pier, ferry or boat slip, and there may be half-a-dozen piers, ferries or boat slips. However, I do not wish to press this matter, and, therefore, with the permission of my hon. and learned Friend, I will not carry it to a Division.

Amendment negatived.

9.50 p.m.

Sir A. Sinclair: I beg to move, in page 14, line i8, after "that," to insert: "apart from damage due to storms of exceptional severity."
This is the first of three Amendments standing in my name, and I understand that it will be in accordance with your wish, Mr. Speaker, and with the wish of the House if I consider as one proposal this Amendment and the two others which follow. The position under this Clause is that once assistance has been given by the Government it will be the right and,

indeed, the duty of the Department to see that the work upon which public money has been expended is properly maintained, and it throws upon local authorities which accept assistance the responsibility for keeping the work permanently in proper repair. It frequently happens that on what the Secretary of State has called the rock-bound coasts of the far North of Scotland we get very heavy storms. In each of the last two years very serious damage has been done to the harbour of Lossiemouth, and many other harbours have also suffered tremendous damage. The fear is that there may be some wholly exceptional storm which will almost destroy a particular harbour and the local authority will then be faced with a tremendous bill for its repair. The Lord Advocate says the safeguard to a local authority is contained in Sub-section (2), that if the demand of the Department is excessive the local authority can appeal to the sheriff, and the sheriff, taking all the circumstances into account will see that it is not hardly used.
We carried the argument so far when the Bill was discussed in Committee, and the Secretary of State then invited me to communicate afresh with the Associations of County Councils of Scotland, who had already raised this point, and inquire whether they were not satisfied with an Amendment which he himself had introduced to strengthen Sub-section (2) and also with the assurances which the Lord Advocate gave to the Committee. I have done so, and I understand that the Secretary of State has also done so, and I find that the local authorities are still not satisfied. The Secretary of State rightly said that the Lord Advocate is the greatest lawyer in Scotland, and he is so regarded by local authorities and people all over Scotland, but even the greatest of lawyers may find himself in a minority, may find that the judges take a different view. If there is any doubt about the interpretation of a Measure we often find the judges differing, even in the Court of Session of Scotland, and the local authorities are afraid unless this Bill is made abundantly clear that a majority judgment may be given against them and the opinion of the Lord Advocate may not be upheld. Therefore, they wish the matter to be put beyond peradventure.
The Lord Advocate said that the ordinary grant given by the Department


to harbours was one of 100 per cent., and he quoted from a list of harbours. Is that list confidential, or could it be laid before the House or put in the Library, because it is certainly not in accordance with my experience that the normal grant which a harbour receives is as much as 100 per cent.—not nearly as much. If, for example, there is a harbour which is worth £100,000 and the grant given is 50 per cent. or 75 per cent., the remaining £50,000 or £25,000 may prove to be an overwhelming burden for the ratepayers in the locality. Local authorities want to be quite certain that when their case goes to the sheriff he will not only consider it from the point of view of whether the repairs required by the Department are reasonable in themselves, but also take into account whether the burden of the expenditure involved will not be an unreasonable one to throw upon a small and impoverished community.
In short, will the sheriff say when he receives the demand of the Department, when he is considering the scheme of the Department for the repair of the harbours, "Well it is a very reasonable scheme; the Department has obviously taken every Measure to reduce expenditure to the lowest possible level consistent with the efficient reconstruction of the harbour. It is the most moderate and reasonable scheme which the Department could have devised if the harbour is to be put once more into a proper state of repair. That being so, whatever it costs the ratepayers, I must put that burden upon them. They have undertaken the responsibility for the maintenance of this harbour, and, provided I am satisfied the Department has exercised all possible care to keep the cost of reconstructing down, I must call upon the local authority to foot the Bill." Or will he say "I will not only consider whether the proposals of the Department are moderate and whether they have reduced the cost as far as possible, but I will also consider whether it is wholly exceptional damage caused not by any ordinary storm but by some thoroughly exceptional storm."
What I have said in my first Amendment is "apart from damaged caused by storms of exceptional severity." Let the sheriff have power to exclude storms of that kind. Let that be a qualification of the general undertaking the local authority is accepting in this Bill. Also

let the local authority not have to undertake any new construction. For example, the Department might say "Properly to safeguard the structure of your harbour you must build a breakwater." Let them be safeguarded in that event. The third of my Amendments would ensure that when the sheriff is considering the scheme of the Department for the reconstruction of the harbour he will quite definitely take into account the vital question of cost, involving what might be an almost intolerable burden upon the ratepayers of that locality.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: I would like to utter one or two very brief comments upon the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair). I entirely approve of the object of this triple Amendment but I would like to point out that the first and last of the three proposals might have been more carefully considered by the right hon. Gentleman. I make this comment only in the hope that it will assist the Lord Advocate to achieve the object that I am sure we have jointly in view. The first exception the Amendments would make is that it would except damage due to storms of exceptional severity. A storm of exceptional severity may do very small damage and a storm of moderate severity very large damage. We have in the area which I and my hon. Friend represent several sea walls and this winter a sea wall was severely breached by a storm of exceptional severity, but the damage involved was almost negligible from the point of view of the resources of the harbour commissioners. Therefore, I would say some more carefully chosen words would be desirable. I would make a similar comment in regard to the last of the three proposals. It asks the sheriff to have regard, inter alia, to the cost involved. Would it not be wiser not to have regard to the cost involved but to the resources of the local authority? A small cost might be a large burden on one authority and a large cost might be a small burden on another authority.

Sir A. Sinclair: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would allow me, while I accept with becoming humility the rebuke for not giving greater care to these Amendments, to assure him that in drafting them I received advice from the Association of Local Authorities in Scotland, which is


composed of very practical men who know the circumstances, not only in Aberdeen but in the ports which do in fact come under the Bill.

Mr. Garro Jones: This is a matter of common sense. I quite appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's intention to transfer the responsibilities for these proposals to the local authority, but nevertheless what I have said stands. It is perfectly clear there is reason in the comments I have made, and I made them not with the object of rebuking the right hon. Gentleman but to strengthen his plea. Therefore I hope the Government will in some way give additional safeguards to the harbour and local authorities.

10.3 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: With the permission of the House I shall deal with the three Amendments together, as the right hon. Gentleman has done, as they are all directed to obtaining the one object of ensuring that no undue burden will be placed by this Clause on the shoulders of the local authorities. The suggestion I have to offer is to concede something, not perhaps in the language he has used, but in substance the third of these Amendments. I have previously stated that according to my conception it will be the duty of the sheriff to have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the cost involved in relation to the resources of the local authorities concerned. These would be inevitably considerations for the sheriff to take into account, but in order to meet the perfectly legitimate fears which are held, I should be prepared to insert the provisions that the sheriff should "have regard to all the circumstances of the case including the cost involved." If the right hon. Gentleman is agreeable I shall be prepared myself to move an Amendment in place of his third Amendment in that form, but having done that I still feel bound to resist the other two Amendments.
As regards the first Amendment, referring to damage due to storms of exceptional severity, the right hon. Member for Caithness mentioned the possibility of the judges of the Court of Session differing on a point of interpretation. I put it confidently that if we insert in an Act of Parliament a phrase like this imposing an obligation dependent on the existence or

non-existence of damage due to storms of exceptional severity, we shall have gone a long way to ensuring that there will be a real difference between them when they have to apply their minds to such an incalculable factor as a storm of exceptional severity. I am obliged to the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) for pointing out that it is not always the storm of exceptional severity which does damage, but I see in this case the possibility of controversy which it is undesirable to introduce into a Clause dealing with a liability of this kind. I would, therefore, press upon the right hon. Member for Caithness the desirability of leaving the contingency to the general discretion of the sheriff, extended in the manner which I have ventured to suggest.
As regards the second Amendment, if "new construction" means new works altogether, that will not arise under this Clause, which is limited, in terms, to operations dealing with repairs; but if by new construction the right hon. Gentleman merely means replacement and repair work the whole object of the Clause is defeated. I suggest that the first and second Amendments proposed on behalf of the County Councils Association, so far from being calculated to advance the object in view, might easily frustrate it, and I hope he will see his way to accept my amended form in place of the third Amendment.

Sir A. Sinclair: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.9 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 14, line 37, after "fit," to insert, "having regard to all the circumstances, including the cost involved."

Sir A. Sinclair: I have looked at this Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has moved. We went over this ground on the Committee stage and I know the extreme difficulty of finding adequate words. We discussed different methods of attaining this object, and I am convinced by the Lord Advocate that there is no solution of the problem of defining exceptional storm damage. I think the only way is to adopt the Amendment which the Lord Advocate has proposed, to insert the words "having regard to all


the circumstances, including the cost involved. "That entirely meets the view which I expressed and I very gladly accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 30.—(Modification of local acts to provide for seaplanes.)

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I beg to move, in page 23, line 3, to leave out "seem to him," and to insert "be."
It seems to me this Clause as it stands is open to objections. First, the Secretary of State is given power by order to modify or adapt the provisions of Acts of Parliament. I appreciate that the objection is not so strong since they are only local Acts, but even so, it seems rather undesirable that the Secretary of State should have power by order, without any inquiries or representations from interested parties, simply to modify the provisions of an Act. It is also an objection that the power to make any adaptation or modifications that may seem to him necessary is one which gives the Secretary of State complete discretion. When he has exercised that discretion, it is impossible to challenge anything he has done before any tribunal whatsoever, because he is able to say that it seems to him necessary. I do not know why we are always getting Clauses such as this which are so widely drawn. There seems to be no excuse for it at all. It would remove some part of my objection if we cut out the words "seem to him" and say that the Secretary of State may make such adaptations and modifications as may be necessary in order to enable the use of these marine works by seaplanes.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Croom-Johnson: I am bound to say that in the last six or seven years I have watched Clauses in a large number, of Bills of this sort with growing apprehension. The Lord Advocate will acquit me of any desire to cause any embarrassment to those desirous of getting through a piece of local legislation of a very desirable sort. But the necessity of watching the power of the executive to amend legislation which has been discussed very carefully by committees and by this House is one which the House as a whole will desire to consider very carefully. It may be said of this Clause that "It is only a little one," to use the language of

Captain Marryat in a well-known work, which we all read in our youth, about the small child born under a cloud. I do not think that this sort of Clause ought to pass time after time without some attention being directed to it, not only by those who in normal circumstances oppose the Government's programme but also by the Government's friends.
I hope that it may be found possible to give consideration to this particular Clause, so that it will not be left merely to the discretion or the ipse dixit of the particular Minister involved, however we may feel that he will be careful to see that what is being done is done with particular regard to the protection of things which people desire to protect. I hope also that he will be very careful to see that the Clause does not go through again and again, without giving individuals who think they may want to make some general amendment in the law an opportunity of uttering their opinions in the place where those opinions ought to be uttered, upon the Floor of the House of Commons, as distinct from making recommendations to Government Departments. It is for that reason only that I think it is desirable, as one of the few English Members who have ventured to intervene in what is, I gather, a Scottish occasion, to call attention once again to the point, to which I have called attention more than once during the time that I have been a Member of this House.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: This is said to be an enabling Bill, but so many disablements or potential disablements are included in it that we cannot let it pass unchallenged. The Secretary of State may, under this Clause, by order apply these qualifications and adaptations, and it may be a rather costly business for the local authority concerned, particularly in the North of Scotland, where the local authorities are among the poorest in the country. I should like to see some sort of Amendment included. Throughout the Bill we have provisions for consultation with the Minister of Transport, the Board of Trade, and so on, but here is no mention of consultation with any other Minister in the matter of adapting and modifying the provisions of a local Act applying to a marine work, in order to facilitate the use by seaplanes. There should have been provision for consulta-


tion with the Board of Trade and possibly with the Ministry of Transport. The local Act must have been regarded as necessary by Parliament when it was given effect to. Local opinion is the very thing that should be consulted, and this is the place where local opinion should be consulted. I hope that some sort of alteration will be made by the Secretary of State.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I do not follow the arguments of the Mover of this Amendment. I should have thought that the purpose of the Clause was to facilitate the action desired by local people. I can imagine in my constituency some modification of the harbour works being desired to meet the requirements of aviation, and the harbour authority or town council seeking some change in the local Act, but being unable to effect that change without going through most cumbersome procedure and coming to this House for the necessary legislation. They seek some easier way to get what they want and so they approach the Scottish Office. As I understand it this Clause would give the Secretary of State power to grant their request without delay or expense. Its effect therefore will be not to hinder or interfere with local authorities but rather to help them. Surely that is a desirable thing.

Mr. Foot: May I explain that the Amendment is to leave out the words "seem to him," and to insert the word "be"? It will still be open to the Secretary of State to make adaptations or modifications by Order, but they will have to be modifications which are actually necessary, and not merely modifications which seem to him to be necessary.

Mr. Stewart: I do not see how it is possible to know whether a thing is or is not necessary unless it seems to be necessary.

Mr. Foot: The courts will decide.

Mr. Stewart: The Secretary of State is to make this decision to meet the will of the local authority, and he must be persuaded to regard it as necessary. I should have thought that the Clause would be weakened by this Amendment.

10.21 p.m.

Colonel Gretton: If I may, as another English Member, intervene for a few

moments in this Debate, it is somewhat startling to see these drastic and practically unlimited powers being conferred upon the Secretary of State to override legislation and to decide by his own fiat, without challenge or question, that certain alterations have to be made in previous enactments of this House. I do not understand the intervention of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. thing which is apparently not there. He says that the Secretary of State is to act Stewart). He reads into the Clause something which is apparently not there. He says that the Secretary of State is to act on the motion of local authorities, but there is nothing of that kind in the Clause. One recognises that, with new developments in transport, and particularly the importance of an aerial defence, some action may have to be taken in certain directions, and one would not oppose this Clause as a matter of high principle; but I regard it is an encroachment on the part of the Executive that they should have power to modify legislation of this House. The acceptance of this Amendment would mean that the Secretary of State, instead of having unchallenged power, would have to exercise his powers on reasonable grounds, which might be challenged elsewhere, possibly in the courts. It is only a drafting Amendment, and I hope that the Government will be able to give it serious consideration and to meet the opinion which has been expressed that these powers go rather too far, and are more than is necessary.

10.24 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: I shall be very glad, on behalf of the Government, to accept the Amendment which the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) has moved. I think a certain amount of misconception prevails in some quarters as to the purpose and effect of this Clause. With reference in particular to the remarks of the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan), I would like to point out that the whole object of Clause 30, either in its original form or as it will be if this Amendment be accepted, is to save expense to the small harbour authorities, and to avoid the necessity, which would otherwise be incumbent upon them, of applying by Provisional Order or Private Bill for an amendment of their local Acts. I think the House has possibly overlooked the


fact that in Clause 10 (2) of the Bill we extended the old Act of 1847 so as to include seaplanes, and that in a Clause which we have not yet reached, Clause 31, we defined the term "vessel" so as to include a seaplane. The whole purpose of Clause 30 is to enable the Secretary of State to make such consequential amendments in local Acts as to bring them into conformity with this Act when it is passed.
I feel that in this case the English Members, whose intervention we so cordially welcome, have attributed to the Government motives which are quite aside from the question of principle, to which they have properly directed their attention. This Clause is more on a parallel with Clauses to be found in the Local Government Act, 1929, with provisions to the effect that various local water rating Acts should be amended to bring them into conformity with the new de-rating provisions. You have to do it that way, because by any other method the Schedules to the Bill would be greatly extended.

10.27 p.m.

Sir A. Sinclair: With reference to the criticisms of the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. MacMillan) of course it is true—and no one that I have heard has said anything to the contrary—that this Clause as amended by the Lord Advocate might be very usefully employed in co-operation between the local authorities and the Secretary of State, and in so far as that is the use that is going to be made of it we welcome it. But as it was originally drafted, it would have been possible for the Secretary of State to do anything that seemed to him necessary whether he had the co-operation of the local authorities or not. The Lord Advocate suggested that he was only going to work in co-operation with local authorities, but there is no safeguard of that sort in the Bill as it stands. We very much welcome the courtesy of the Lord Advocate in accepting the Amendment and we think it is a real improvement to the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 32.—(Repeal of 54 and 55 Vict. c. 55.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move in, page 24, line 21, at the end, to insert:
Provided that, without prejudice to the provisions of the Interpretation Act, 1899, any

table of rates fixed, any lease of rates granted, any by-law, or any appointment made or any other thing done under the first-mentioned Act, shall, if in force at the commencement of this Act, continue in force, and shall, so far as it could have been fixed, granted, made or done under or in pursuance of this Act, be deemed to have been so fixed, granted, made or done.
The sole purpose of this is to save existing contracts under the Act of 1891, which we later repeal.

Amendment agreed to.

FIRST SCHEDULE.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I beg to move, in page 27, line to leave out "six weeks," and to insert "three months."
Part II of this Schedule deals with the provisions as to compulsory purchase orders. The usual procedure in these cases is prescribed and it is further provided that anyone who wants to question the validity of an Order and says that the provisions of the Act have not been properly complied with must within six weeks make an application for the purpose to the Court of Session. This question also was very carefully considered by the Donoughmore Committee and they said that a Clause that was designed to oust the jurisdiction of the courts to inquire into the validity of an order or regulation made by a Department, was never justified and should never be used. They went on to admit that there were certain cases where finality would be desirable, and in those cases, which should be rare, there ought to be a period of challenge of six months, or at the very least three months. Perhaps the Lord Advocate will tell us whether it is the intention of the Government to have the slightest regard to the report of this committee or not. On many occasions they have entirely ignored what is recommended, and this seems to be another of those occasions.

The Lord Advocate: Apart altogether from the Donoughmore Report the simple question raised by this Amendment is whether it is desirable where the compulsory purchase procedure is to be followed in connection with a harbour under this Bill that the proceedings should be held up and nothing done at all for a period of three months, on the off chance that somebody may wish to challenge the validity of the proceeding, or whether it is not quite long enough if a six weeks interval is given. Quite


frankly, my view is that six weeks is long enough. To hold the thing up for months is simply a waste of time. I accordingly feel that I cannot accept the Amendment. There have been precedents within recent times, notably in the Town and Country Planning Act and the Air Navigation Act, in which periods not exceeding six weeks have been inserted.

Amendment negatived.

SECOND SCHEDULE.

Amendments made:

In page 28, line 15, leave out from "The," to "before," in line 16, and insert "Secretary of State."

In line 16, leave out "construction," and insert "execution."

In line 18, leave out "they," and insert "he."

In line 23, leave out "Department," and insert "Secretary of State."

Consequential Amendments made.—[The Lord Advocate.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY [13th April].

Resolutions reported:

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1937.

1. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,159,180, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for Expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, certain Post Offices abroad, and for certain expenses in connection with Boats and Launches belonging to the Customs and Excise Department."

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £121,720 be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for Expenditure in respect of Public Buildings Overseas."

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three Minutes before Eleven o' Clock.